Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)/Archive 5

message: I have noticed that an article has been created for the 2007 Doctor Who Christmas special. For now, I have redirected this article to List of Doctor Who serials as its content is mostly speculation. It is currently too early to create this article as we do not have enough information about the story to write it - no doubt this information will appear on the Outpost Gallifrey news page and in DWM within the coming months, at which time we can write the article properly. (I believe a similar situation occurred last year - the proposed deletion failed, so a redirect is probably the best option.) Silver Nemesis 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reverted an edit added Christmas 07 to this page and explained in my edit summary: "rv Christmas Special 2007. We no some things but not enough. Will be on Christmas Day? Will it be 60 minutes? Will it involve Tennatn even??" -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we know it will be a Christmas Special, and it is intended to start Tennant and be directed by James Strong.  Length/day of broadcast isn't known. Stephenb (Talk) 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Doctor Who Christmas Special 

message: I just saw a sky news headline which claimed that bbc bosses are planning to axe the series after the forth season. However, I cannot find this online. Can anyone find something which might confirm or deny this?--Hammard 09:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/31/dr_who_axe_plan  192.88.212.68 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, this daft Sun rumour has been denied by the BBC.  See Outpost Gallifrey 31 May].  Tabloid rumours have no place in an encyclopedia. I'd vote for removing the whole section.  Who needs to know what rumours have been invented in the interests of selling papers and have later been proven wrong?  As to this one: common sense tells you that Russell T will eventually decide he's had enough of Doctor Who. Common sense also tells you the BBC is not going to axe a very successful money-making brand.Gwinva 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. 192.88.212.68 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Axeing after series 4

message: Not that it seems to have any part in this article, but Doctor Who Series Three premiers in the US on July 6 on the Sci Fi Channel, right after the season concludes in the UK.  This includes the Christmas episode, the Runaway Bride.  Cary Bass demandez 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sci Fi 

message: The BBC has confirmed that the last three stories of Doctor Who: Series 3 — 'Utopia', 'The Sound Of Drums', and 'Last Of The Time Lords' — together form a three-part story, and the 191st Doctor Who serial. They are the first three-parter in the revived series. The 2007 Christmas Special is the 192nd serial. Let's keep it that way on the table, yes? I'm sure whoever changed it did so with good intentions, but I thought I'd post this here so that we're all clear. Catalina 123 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where has it been confirmed? --OZOO (Can't you hear them?) 08:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the Totally Doctor Who episode for "Utopia". If you look on the Utopia Wikipedia article under the subheading 'Production and pre-broadcast publicity', the third point is: "This episode was announced to be the first of a three-part story in Totally Doctor Who, broadcast the day before. Prior to this, only the following two instalments had been linked.". Catalina 123 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see the Totally Doctor Who episode, but from what I've heard, that was an off-hand comment by someone, ie, not at all official. Sort of like how J. K. Rowling once claimed that Harry Potter books six and seven were like two halves of a single book... that's obviously not LITERALLY true. The picture gallery on the BBC website groups Utopia separately from the two-part finale. That's two official sources, both of them of dubious reliability, each saying something different. Consider also the fact that the final two episodes have their own director, and the third-to-last episode has another. Finally, it's fairly clear after watching the episodes in question that there are two distinct (but closely connected) stories. As has been said before, The Keeper of Traken and Logopolis are similarly connected, and yet they are also very clearly distinct. So, we are not, as you say, "all clear," and I think we need to come to some sort of a definite consensus.Dirk Amoeba 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't want to give too much away, but it is a three parter. DonQuixote 14:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it, and I don't see any conclusive evidence of that. Dirk Amoeba 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, "skies are made of diamonds"? I wouldn't have realised it was a three-parter until the end, even if it switches locations. Alientraveller 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm...yeah, there's that bit where the Master/the Toclafane explains everything to the Doctor/Martha.  Last a few minutes that scene. DonQuixote 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would have thought "TO BE CONTINUED...." appearing before the end credits was enough evidence on its own that "Utopia" forms part of a multipart story! -- Arwel (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Utopia' is grouped seperately from 'The Sound of Drums' and 'Last of the Time Lords' in the picture gallery on the BBC Doctor Who website because of the different location and characters. Catalina 123 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because they didn't want to give away the ending Utopia. Alientraveller 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Utopia'; 'The Sound Of Drums'; 'Last Of The Time Lords' = 3-parter 

message: 85.92.163.74, you have already broken 3RR, I (and others) could have easily reported you there, which would have resulted in a block. This article's purpose is mainly to list all episodes of Doctor Who, whith some information relevant to the episodes/seasons. The information you keep adding are simply not relevant! And as Stephenb already mentioned, one could fill the entire wiki with stuff that RTD didn't state. What hasn't been stated cannot be sourced; that breaks Verifyability. Adding a list of villains that have not appeared is irrelevant to this article (it's a list of episodes), and it appears as speculation and that breaks No Original Research.
You should really ask yourself what this article gains with adding this information. In my opinion, it doesn't add anything, and other editors think the same. It is good that you finally discuss it at the talk page; that is where consensus is made, which is the main principle foundation of how Wikipedia works. However, edit warring as you did is disruptive, and can get you blocked. Basic rule is: if someone doesn't like you edits, discuss first and work out consensus. Now I'm off to bed as well... --Edokter (Talk) 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: I'm actually not too fond of home-brewed TOCs. First, they do not auto-populate, so updating sections breaks the links. I know the standard TOC is way oversized, but it can be condensed to show only level 2 section; I don't see the point in linking to each season/serial anyway, it only clutters the TOC. I'm going to put the condenced (and automatically populating) TOC in for now. Please discuss which version you prefer before blanket reverting. --Edokter (Talk) 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the standard TOC works fine or the one with The Doctor and Seasons across from it nit the one with the Seasons below th Doctor. ≈ Seraph 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: Recent edits to Other stories, seem to have gone outside the article's brief.  It was my understanding this list was supposed to focus on the televised series, yet we now have both Dalek films (neither of which was produced by the BBC, by the way) plus every webcast known to man.  Perhaps we ought to discuss what this article is for?  Mark H Wilkinson 10:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think other stories have their place here (for lack of a better place), but need to be better categorized, and not too elaborate. --Edokter (Talk) 10:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television, Films and Webcasts 

message: Who ever keeps deleting the text for the movie please stop it. It's not called "Doctor Who", it's called "The Movie" and the Code for it is "TVM". It even says that on the official Doctor Who website. Also "Attack of the Graske" is meant to be listed on the episode guide. It may be an interactive episode but its meant to be there, right under "The Christmas Invasion". As it says on the official Doctor Who website, okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 
:The BBC site refers to it as "The TV Movie" as a way to distinguish it from the other episodes of the television series, which also come under the banner "Doctor Who".  But it remains the case that the TVM is titled "Doctor Who", as evidenced by the opening titles, the book Doctor Who: Regeneration written by producer Philip Segal etc. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on the official website does it say AotG comes right after TCI?--OZOO (What?) 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere that I can see. It's currently available in the games section, though.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would really like to see some (online) reference for these production codes. (Incidentally, I'd really like to know where the other codes and serial numbers come from.) --Edokter (Talk) 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The alphabet system used by the original series is well documented in a number of reference works (Lofficier springs to mind).  The #season.#episode system is as in DWM, and I assume it's handed to them by the production office (it's seems almost fairly universal system, these days). --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is generally accepted by most fans that the interactive episode 'Attack of the Graske' is not canon. The wikipedia article for the episode discusses its dubious canonicity, as it does with the books. Catalina 123 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whats meant to be added

message: Can we have some confirmation of this? --Edokter (Talk) 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its rubbish.--Wiggstar69 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought so... removed. --Edokter (Talk) 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it is rubbish, guys - it is being discussed at OG by someone who apparently has an early copy of the latest DWM (and is quoting quite believably) Stephenb (Talk) 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you provide the page number so someone else can verify this?  Sorry to be sceptical but there is no mention of this at http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/ and they've reviewed the magazine that's cited.  Thanks.  Kelpin 07:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewed? I can only see the preview on the site, which is provided by DWM Stephenb (Talk) 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you're right - I only speed read it for mention of Planet of Ood.  Kelpin 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait until the magazine has come out, at the moment its just speculation.--Wiggstar69 08:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but not necessarily rubbish :-) Stephenb (Talk) 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you look on the official Doctor Who website, there is now an article on the episode. Here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/07/25/47491.shtml Do you think Planet of the Ood should have its own article and a place on the list of Doctor Who serials? Of course if it were to be added to the list, we wouldn't be able to state the serial number, episode code, writer, director or air date, and we don't know if it's a one-off or multi-parter. We would only be able to have the episode title there as a link. Catalina 123 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, sorry, I've just noticed we already have mention of 'Planet of the Ood'. :) Catalina 123 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Planet of the Ood" 

message: Right, I've hauled out TVM producer Philip Segal's book on the making of the film, Doctor Who: Regeneration, and right at the back is the BBC Production number: 50/LDX071Y/01X 1996. Does this mean anything to anyone? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google doesn't give many results, but it seems like a couple of other sites use it as production code. Personally, I've never seen it before... Davhorn 09:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tucked away among all the minor production details that most people (including me) don't bother to read.  (There's even a minute-by-minute breakdown of the incidental music.)  I brought this up because there's been a bit of a discussion over what production code to use, if any. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Since VitasV (finally!) came up with a source actually stating a production code, I'm willing to accept TVM, as the BBC at least has some authority when it come to Doctor Who. Should it matter if it was used during production or assigned post-production? --Edokter (Talk) 11:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who Stephenb (Talk) 11:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TVM production code 

message: What is the total number of DW episodes?--Moonlight Mile 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the main article! Davhorn 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episodes

message: We should have a common date formatting established, especially the dates in the "7-15 February" format. The dates are auto-formatted according to the Date/time setting your preferences, which gives strange results like "7-February 15" in some cases. This happens when preferenceas are set as [month day year]. While it some cases the date is hard-formatted using piped links, that defeates the auto-formatting functionality. I'd like to expand all dates in full. Any input before I try to fix the whole mess?  — Edokter • Talk •  11:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source has 7-15 February I think it works.  I've used that on some things that are displayed as above, and it has worked.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried that on a couple of things like that, and it works for my preference. StuartDD contributions 07:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date nightmare 

message: Is it worth retitling this article?  Strictly speaking, it's no longer a list of serials.  --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of doctor who stories already redirects to this article, but because it's lower case(!) I've tagged it CSD-G6. Then there are List of Doctor Who episodes (my preference for new title), Doctor Who episodes and Doctor Who serials (but not Doctor Who stories).  — Edokter • Talk •  22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines on redirects allow for variant capitalisation redirects for purposes which I think apply to List of doctor who stories.  That said, could you clarify whether your answer means it's not worth a retitle? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 23:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The allowed variants only apply if a page with the correct capitalisation exists. But since it doesn't, a link to the correctly capitalised page doesn't even work (but a lower case link to a capitalized page does work), that's why I tagged it. Having said that, I would consider a move to List of Doctor Who episodes a better choice; "Stories" doesn't have the right ring to it. It might if it it included all books and such, but this article only lists TV episodes/serials.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not stuck on List of Doctor Who stories.  I just thought it made for a more interesting heading than "Rename the article". --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 23:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. I think List of Doctor Who episodes fits the article slightly better, but I'm also happy leaving it at List of Doctor Who serials. But overal I think it's not a pressing matter.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Doctor Who stories? 

message: I've rewritten the article titled above, and then merged it into the appropriate section of this article.  The source is the BBC Doctor Who website.  Although I've done my best to fit this into the existing text, my apologies for any inadvertent duplication or lapse of formatting.  Please proof this change and fix as appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some copy-editing.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Doctor Who Series Four]]

message: Regarding The Sun's story about Sir Ben Kingsley/Davros: do we include or not?  Wiggstar69 seems against it. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we make clear that the Sun in not a reliable source and the fact was not confirmed by the BBC or any other source (which was made clear), I don't have a problem with including it.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't like to include anything unconfirmed, its an encyclopedia, I feel the information should always be 100% reliable, if the BBC confirmed it, it would be another matter.--Wiggstar69 08:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  If the only source we have for something is a tabloid gossip rag, we shouldn't report it. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see Tony Sidaway's point, but my view is that it should go in. The Sun, as much as I share your view of it, is the biggest-selling paper in the country, may God have mercy on us all, besides which the nature of tabloid journalism is such that stories are often unearthed by one paper alone - subsequent reporting often draws on the original report rather than representing separate, independent research. The story does concern a major actor and a major Doctor Who icon, so if nothing else its inclusion supports the assertions of Doctor Who's cultural importance. The grounds given for excluding it are less convincing than those in favour of inclusion. Peeper 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The program's cultural importance is not in doubt, and I fail to see how an article in that rag can make any difference to that one way or the other.  The same newspaper prints tripe about pop stars, feckless fashion models and gormless game show contestants, nearly all of whom are destined for merciful obscurity within a couple of years.  Until we have a reliable source for the casting of Ben Kingsley, the rumor should be kept out of this encyclopedia simply because we have, or aspire to, standards much higher than The Sun's. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that persuades me. Nicely done. The only caution I have is that we must not be snobby about a particular publication on cultural grounds. There is also a subtle difference between noting that the Sun reported this, and reporting it ourselves with the Sun as a source. While you may consider the Sun lowbrow tripe, just because it reports on Big Brother evictees does not mean that all its reporting is invalid. Also, we can't anticipate whether people will or will not fade into obscurity in the future. So as long as the judgements are being made on the specific facts in front of us, I'm happy. That said, I now think that mention of this Sun report belongs more properly in the cultural references section of Doctor Who than here - because the fact of its being reported is, arguably, significant, while the content of the report is not (on the basis that its reliability is questionable). Peeper 13:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davros & Kingsley 

message: (Apologies if this has been asked before, I looked but didn't see it in the archives or above.) According to the article here, the new episodes are all 45 minutes long. If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they're approximately 45 minutes long? --Umrguy42 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do people expect television episodes to be uniformly the exact same length?  If somebody told me a series consisted of 22 42-minute episodes, for example, I think I'd expect 22 episodes which were in the region of 42 minutes each. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. If we start to get pernickety about episode lengths, it'll only end in discussions about minutes and seconds and that's not fun. Peeper 12:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be extremely pernickity.  And after all, were ALL the episdoes in the classic series exactly 25 mins?  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode two of The Ultimate Foe was thirty minutes long. Will (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of 2005 & on episodes 

message: Re recent additions to the article: is the extra info coming from DWM?  I can't find an extra-Wikipedia source online. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent IP changes 

message: The TOC has been changed again.  Was there genuine consensus for the previous version, or should we accept what's now in place? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the compact TOC. I initially changed it mainly because the old TOC wasn't self-updating, which always broke the links. I wish there was some type of expandable/collapsable TOC.  — Edokter • Talk •  10:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: News about series 5: given that we're not yet up to listing series 4 episodes yet, how much of the latest news should we add here? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out of the article because it was unsourced - but as its on the BBC website I'd say it should go in.Kelpin 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.--Wiggstar69 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.--VitasV 4/9/07  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I.  I'm just not sure it needs to be mentioned twice in the same section. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could create a "beyond series 4" section containing the new information for series 5 etc.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 5 for 2010, specials in 2009 

message: Is there any source to confirm they're on at bank holidays? I'm a bit curious about that... Xdt 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the source, so no, it doesn't specify dates for the specials. Davhorn 22:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the current ref with your source.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked that source, and it doesn't specify that the specials are "Bank Holiday" specials, so I've removed "Bank Holiday". StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Times Online (Tennant takes a break...): "He has agreed to film three extended bank holiday specials to keep fan’s happy during 2009." Please check all references before deleting any information again.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bank holiday specials?

message: Does someone have the source for the production blocks?  Currently for blocks 3/4 it has "1 episode", but I seem to recall it stating that the episodes filmed would be single episodes, not that only one episode would be filmed.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 4 blocks 

message: Was anyone aware we had an article of the above title?  I've redirected it here for the time being, but if anyone thinks more could or should be done with it, at least you now know about it. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew we had it, but I thought it redirected here already.  I don't think we know enough about it to warrant a separate article. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just been checking and it's a new one, created earlier this month.  The older version didn't capitalise the "the". --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have "Planet of the Ood", doesn't that qualify "Planet of The Ood" for speedy deletion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would fall under housekeeping speedies. Tagged with .  — Edokter • Talk •  14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Planet of The Ood]] 

message: An unknown IP tried to start the series 4 table (although it cam out wrong).  I reverted it because I wasn't sure if we has a source for Planet of the Ood being the second episode.  If this IS confirmed, should we start the table?  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 16:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC released that title in August and it's also referenced in an issue of DWM.  I don't know that one title is worth starting the table for, but maybe others are more certain? --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean the title, I meant the title being "episode 2", as that was where it was put in the table. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 17:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that'll teach me to speed read.  No, I don't know that that's been confirmed for second episode. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting the series 4 table 

message: An IP put these in as episodes 2/3 is the production block.
Do we have a source for these being episodes 2 and 3 of the series?
StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 19:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. I say revert.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a lot of the stuff in that production block is simply made up with references to DWM which as far as i can recall hasn't really said much about it.--Wiggstar69 12:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently, DWM 387 just hit the shelves.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note on that IP's talk page asking for the issue of DW magazine.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 19:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet of the Ood/ agatha  Christie episode 

message: if the Children in need special is confirmed for November this year how come nobody has put it up?--Wiggstar69 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think its been confirmed. I think all we have is Sun speculation. I will happily be proved wrong, though. --OZOO (What?) 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speculation which was 'neither confirmed nor denied' in the latest DWM DavidFarmbrough 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children in need special 2007 

message: Someone changed "Rome Episode" to Pompeii episode, but it was changed becasue of no source.  Doesn't this source - here - state that the Pompeii episode is the Rome episode?  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. Davhorn 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome episode 

message: Sorry if this is a double post, but the Pompeii details still aren't in the article; I'm afraid I don't have time to do it myself.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have this: The Doctor and Donna will also visit Pompeii in 79AD, on the eve of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. Guest stars featuring in this episode include Peter Capaldi playing Caecillius, Phil Davis as Lucius and Tracey Childs as Metella. This episode featured one week of filming at the Cinecittà studio in Rome. in the article
StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourced and all?--Porcupine (prickle me!) 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the source is given beside it - bottom of Guest Stars  section.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 19:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probally needs some more come to that. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You mean this one?--OZOO (What?) 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. He was a real person who lived on Stabian street, but his wife Metella, son Quintus, cook Grumio and slave Clemens were all fictitious. I nearly cried at the end of Year 7 when he died from Vesuvius!!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 16:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I forgot Melissa the domina (slave-girl). But I gave it up at the end of Y8, so I missed the next three years' plot by Salvius to murder Quintus' friend King Cogidubnus!!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loathe as I am to nitpick... but Melissa was indeed the slave-girl, BUT the Latin word is ancilla; Metella was the domina (mistress). A Level Latin has cursed me for ever!!!! FOR EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cough. - NP Chilla 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would've nitpicked earlier - damn you, Adeste fidelis! (the only Latin song I ever knew). Of course, there is the ever increasing in popular culture latin-originated word dominatrix, which, knowing RTD, will probably be in the episode. Will (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/09/25/49091.shtml Pompeii] 

message: the News of the world newspaper has said Billie Piper will return as Rose Tyler for 3 episodes of the next series--Lerdthenerd 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave that out until get get official confirmation.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 09:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I agree lets leave it until we get a better source, the bbc website doesn't say anything on Billie Piper yet.--Lerdthenerd 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billie Piper rumour

message: BEHOLD!!!!! How should we phrase this in the article?? - NP Chilla 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in there; it just says that they're appearing. They're awful, though - I hope they're not the Big Bad that RTD's mentioned!--Porcupine (prickle me!) 07:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sontarans have been confirmed by the BBC 

message: Is it worth putting this material into the article, not as a reliable piece of info, but just to note the fact that it was said?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like speculation to me.  If we are not treating it as reliable, then there is not much point in having it.  An encyclopedia should not have speculation.  It would be better to get an official source for it.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 17:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, we have noted rumours before, as rumours. As in, "The Daily Star reported on the Xth of Quatember that..." as opposed to "This episode will contain Davros[2]". Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, and we have had that sort of thing before, but putting something in as speculation in an encyclopedia is not a good idea.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 08:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not? It's not against the MoS. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Star is about as reliable as a tin foil hat's proof of aliens. Will (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the above conversation, and then reply again. We're not suggesting that it's reliable, we're suggesting that it's worth noting the fact that it suggested that info. Just like it's worth having all that election speculation in Gordon Brown etc. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, they make the stuff up to fill the pages. Will (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that an unreliable source has made speculative, probably wildly inaccurate statements is surely not worth noting.  The main reason for this is that not much notice is taken of such statements. --Tony Sidaway 09:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "we're suggesting that it's worth noting the fact that it suggested that info." - I wasn't.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 09:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if it isn't reliable it isn't worth mentioning (sorry porcupine)--Wiggstar69 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should wait for the bbc website or the doctor who magazine to verify it before we add it to the article, i think they are better sources and besides this rumour sounds too good to be true.--Lerdthenerd 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Daily Star'' 

message: The Tramp has recently gone through the page changing "all missing" to "all x missing" (where x is the number of episodes).  Do we really need the "x" in? StuartDD contributions 12:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: example here StuartDD contributions 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Superfluous. Davhorn 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed with Davhorn. -- Kjet 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed them. StuartDD contributions 14:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Drop him a message telling him about this discussion. StuartDD contributions 08:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing episodes 

message: The Sun newspaper claims the 5th doctor Peter Davison is coming back to star along side the current doctor David Tennant in the children in need special, can someone clarify whether this is true or just a rumour.--Lerdthenerd 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been around for a while.  I don't think it's been confirmed - and as Last of the Time Lords looks to lead directly into Voyage of the Damned, it's probally not going to be an official story anyway. StuartDD contributions 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be an official story, but not a part of the current continuum of the 10th Doctor. The story's also been on Yahoo TV, but I'm not sure how believable that is - plus they might have got it from The Sun anyways. -- Kjet 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It might be an official story" - sorry, I'm not trying to start a debate over whether it is a story - I meant that IF the children in Need special happens, then it is unlightly to be like Doctor Who:Children in Need, it is more likely to be an "other story" since "Last of the Time Lords" looks to lead directly into "Voyage of the Damned". StuartDD contributions 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah yeah, I'm not debating that either, I just resented your use the word "official". It can be an official part of the Doctor Who continuum even if it doesn't take place chronologically - this is a series about time travel after all. ^_~ -- Kjet 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "this is a series about time travel after all." - good point. StuartDD contributions 13:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a series about time travel, it's a series about people - they just happen to use time travel as a device :) However I think it is quite reasonable for any CIN special not to be set between the last and next story but still retain a place in the overall series' continuity. DavidFarmbrough 09:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davidson's confirmed according to the BBC Dr. Who Website--74.134.237.91 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sun is spreading rumours again 

message: I'm just making sure here, but someone has put "Episodes 5-6 (Sontarans)".  Does the DW magazine specify that it is both, and not just one?  StuartDD contributions 08:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but I hope to God it doesn't - I can't face a two-parter with those stupid aliens in it... --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been changed by Pdb781.  I assume he's right. StuartDD contributions 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sontarans 

message: has added the title Blues for episode one  using this as a source. Does this qualify as a reliable source? --OZOO (What?) 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure. I know, though, that fake titles have been used in casting calls before. (though I'd wait until the title appears in DWM) Will (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that it doesn't meet the standards for a reliable source on Wikipedia, per Will's concern about fake titles and the fact that actors have been known to lie on their resumes before.  Let's wait for a better source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should wait till we get official confirmation.  I doubt this counts as a reliable source. StuartDD contributions 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blues"