Talk:Tenth Doctor/Archive 1

message: Is the Doomsday episode the first time we have seen the Doctor cry? If so, it seems somewhat significant, and perhaps should be mentioned in the article. I seem to remember an article in Radio Times Magazine that said that this was the first time the Doctor had been seen to cry but perhaps that is just referring to the two new series, and unfortunately I have no means to verify this statement as I have long since thrown out the 'offending article' as it were.  Can anyone help? Ammi 14:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: tears

message: It might be helpful if someone can locate the original article in which Tennent is quoted as saying he wanted to wear a kilt as the Doctor so it can be cited in the article. 23skidoo 19:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in The Daily Mirror (link to web version added as you suggest.) Tim! (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, thanks! (It's a fun piece of trivia if nothing else). 23skidoo 02:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kilt joke

message: There's a new interview with RTD in SFX (ha!), in which we find this:
There have been all these conflicting stories about the Tenth Doctor’s accent. Will he be English? Will he be Scottish? Will he be a bit of both? So, go on, tell all. For us!
“D'you know, I keep getting letters about this, and it's weird. Did you not watch 'The Parting of the Ways'? Did you fall asleep before the last scene?! (Don't answer that) He spoke! That was his accent, him there, that Doctor talking, on screen, him. I know he doesn't say much, but it's very, very clear. Anyway, describing accents in print is one of the odder things I've been asked to do, so you'll just have to find out at Christmas."
I feel like some part of this ought to be included, or at least reflected, in the bit on this page about the Tenth Doctor's accent, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to do it.  Anybody else care to give it a go? —Josiah Rowe 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done something. Have a go at it.--Sean Black Talk 01:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it a bit more, 'cause it seems to me that Davies is casting a doubt on whether we're hearing what we think we're hearing when we call his accent "Southern English".  But then, I'm a Yank, so what do I know? —Josiah Rowe 01:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm from the States, as well, actually. My experience with accents is mostly limited to Ben and Tegan, as sad as that is :).--Sean Black Talk 01:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I lived in England for a year (attending Uppingham School), for what that's worth, but I'm still far from Henry Higgins when it comes to UK accents. —Josiah Rowe 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent 

message: Just to be clear, is I Am a Dalek a novel or a short story? As listed now, it appears to be the fourth novel in the Tenth Doctor series. 23skidoo 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a novel. A short one, but a novel nonetheless. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will it be released by BBC Books or is it coming out under a separate publisher (ie. like Big Finish's Short Trips)? 23skidoo 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it'll be under BBC Books. Quick Reads is a program that publishers and writers are participating in, not a separate imprint as far as I can tell. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I Am a Dalek

message: Can we find a better name for it than "Tenth Doctor's theme music", perhaps along the lines of "New series theme music"? The current name implies the different seasons have different music. (This applies to the Ninth Doctor article too.) --Whouk (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "theme arrangement"? After all, it is the same song. 23skidoo 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrangement works. Note that the title arrangement is subtly different in The Christmas Invasion; it sounds a lot like the closing theme to series one (which you can only really hear clearly at the end of Parting of the Ways).--Aderack 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has anyone actually heard the arrangement being used in the regular series? If it ends up being the same as the 2005 series, maybe the link should be renamed "Christmas Invasion theme arrangement"? 23skidoo 16:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The link isn't to the closing Christmas Invasion music. AFAICT, it's identical to the Eccleston and TCI opening theme - not really a Tenth Doctor specific arrangement at all. It's copyright status is also questionable. —Whouk (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought about that, but I listened to the Ninth Doctor theme link and the Tenth Doctor one back-to-back and there are definite differences. The 10th theme sounds "busier" than the 9th. Maybe they were just recorded off TV differently? 23skidoo 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, the TCI theme sounds like an edit-down of the Eccleston closing theme rather than the opening one. Compare it to what you get over the end credits to Parting of the Ways and tell me it's not the same. --Aderack 16:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme tune link 

message: I realize the Doctor stated that the free radicals in tea aided in his regeneration, but I think this was a scripting error, and the intended term was antioxidants (of which tea is actually a good source). Free radicals tend to have a damaging effect on cells. Should any note be made concerning this? I understand this is a little nit-picky, but I'm a stickler about bad science : )
Stationwagontodd 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, give the man a break, he's in the midst of regeneration trauma, after all! :) if this is to be added anywhere, it's probably most appropriate in the notes for The Christmas Invasion itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides, he's been known to "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" and credit the "high concentration of positive ions" for feeling good on the Eye of Orion. :) (I just figure that (a) our terminology is "wrong" compared to the Time Lords, and/or (b) he knows better than we do.) --Joe Sewell 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: We're also talking about an alien who could be killed by aspirin, so we shouldn't expect a one-to-one correspondence between human toxins and Time Lord toxins.  proteus71 1:31, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, free radicals may have been just what the Doctor wanted, however, it is commonly understood that it is anti-oxidants not free radicals that are found in tea. Now I realise I'm arguing with myself a tad, but I recently read in RD (December 2006 issue I think)that although tea has a lot of antioxidants in it, it is also surprisingly teeming with free radicals.  This would make the Doctor correct in his statement about free-radicals and tanin. Tinkstar1985 06:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He is an alien. Free radicals may be good for him, but bad for us. Time Lords are different. --I.W 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Free Radicals" in tea? 

message: Are you certain D10 was the first to use an afected accent? I thought the first Doctor did something like this. And the Fifth Doctor impersonated the accents of at least 3 of the previous four Doctors in Castovalva. 23skidoo 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry!  I should have typed ' first to affect an American accent'.  Thanks.  :)  proteus 1:27, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that works (unless Hartnell did so in the Gunfighters, of course ...) ;) 23skidoo 05:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Affected accents

message: :He also referred to his pyjamas and dressing gown as being "very Arthur Dent". However, it's unclear as to whether he actually met the character, or was just throwing in a Hitchhiker's reference.
I'm aware of Douglas Adams having been a writer for Doctor Who, but I'll admit I'm not so well versed in the Whoniverse* to know whether or not it crosses over with the HHGTTG universe—although that seems to be pretty darn unlikely, giving the absurd nature of the latter. Are we really suggesting the Doctor might have met a fictional character (in the Doctor's world as well as ours), or that he met a random "Arthur Dent" with the same taste in pyjamas?
:* I just googled this term I made up and it appears to be in common use—neat! :-)
82.92.119.11 19:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Destiny of the Daleks, where the Doctor claims that Colluphid got his book on the origin of the universe "wrong on the first line". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference was inserted by DNA himself. Well, if the universes do cross over, I guess it's just a matter of time before we see Doctor Who and the Vogons. Maybe this time the Earth won't be demolished... 82.92.119.11 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken from whoisdoctorwho.co.uk -part of the bbc.co.uk canon for the new series. "Arthur Dent This rather odd man was lying down in front of a bulldozer in front of my home" Ammi 13:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. All these are submitted by readers; you'll notice that both I (Terence Chua) and Josiah Rowe both have submitted entries there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the Doctor is simply aware of HHGTTG as a work of fiction (eg: if he mentioned Homer Simpson, you might just assume he is referring to the TV show, not a fat, yellow, 3 finger and a thumb friend of his).  I'm sure the Doctor was just referring to Authur Dent with full knowledge that he is a fictional character. Tinkstar1985 09:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Dent? 

message: OK, so we've now seen the Tenth Doctor twice determine the identity of substances by tasting or licking them.  It's odd, but is it noteworthy?  A personality quirk or just a coincidence?  Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps he's just been watching too much Due South. Angmering 06:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It reminded me of Richard E. Grant licking the mirror in The Curse of Fatal Death... —Whouk (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be a Tenth Doctor thing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant was a ninth doctor, wasn't he? Damiancorrigan 23:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was the tenth incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death, too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst Grant did play the Doctor, and probably sat somewhere around incarnation 9, he doesn't really fit into the main Doctor Who timeline, in which Christopher Eccleston played the 9th Doctor.  This is the same for a number of actors who have portrayed the Doctor in various mediums from radio, and books on tape, to theatre productions. Tinkstar1985 09:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversation above was about the "Handsome Doctor" which Grant portrayed (for a few minutes) in The Curse of Fatal Death, not the sorta-kinda Ninth Doctor he played in Scream of the Shalka.  I admit that it's confusing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quirk or coincidence? 

message: it mentions this briefly in the "girl in the fireplace" part, but having read the tardis article i didnt see a prominent explanation of this. I think in terms of DW overall it's an important concept to explain to the ininitiated. In "Bad Wolf" (i think) the doctor explains it quickly to rose
cycloid 10:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  asyncronous timeline? 

message: I don't know enough about the older doctors to know for sure, but I didn't think regenerations gave the Doctor new knowledge. In which case "Like the previous Doctor, it appears the Tenth Doctor is well-versed in human popular culture" is inaccurate. Perhaps it should be something more like "the Tenth Doctor is is appreciative of human popular culture".Damiancorrigan 15:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, everyone seems to be ignoring me, so I'll go ahead and change it. Damiancorrigan 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea.  Do you have any references for the Doctor obtaining new knowledge through regeneration?Andral 10:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regenerations and new knowledge

message: Since input was solicited:  Sarah Jane Smith was a former companion, but was just a guest star on one of the 10th doctor's episodes.  She is not, in my opinion a companion of the 10th doctor. Nandesuka 16:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your right, she isn't a companion to the tenth incarnation.  My reasoning for this was first that she only appeared in one episode.  However, Donna (the bride in Runaway Bride) also only appeared in one episode, but came accross as more of a companion, particularly considering the amount of time she spent inside the TARDIS, amongst other things.   Tinkstar1985 08:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Came Here via the RFC 

message: I added her to the list following Army of Ghosts based on her TARDIS trip plus the last two years as a recuring character/quasi-companion of the Ninth and Tenth Doctors. This was removed, presumably due to the opinion that her lack of qualification for companion status is not overruled by the events of the episode- comments anyone?  I believe that the events of the episodeclearly involved her to a sufficent degree to justify listing her as a companion.  MartinMcCann 19:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a companion really has to travel willingly with the Doctor; Ida travelled with the Doctor, but that was by necessity, not choice, so she doesn't count. Likewise, Jackie only accidently wound up on the TARDIS; if she choses to travel with the Doctor willingly after this, even just for one episode, she then becomes a companion á la Adam Mitchell or Cap'n Jack. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Ian nor Barbara chose to travel in the TARDIS either , but they're companions.  Admittedly the circumstances were slightly different but the fact the Jackie's TARDIS trip was unintentional does not rule her out. More importantly, she has been an important recurring character for the last two years, played a vital role in The Christmas Invasion with that tea, and the situation at the end of the episode makes it inevitable that she will in the middle of things in Doomsday.  Maybe not enough to qualify her on their own, but together they make a convincing case.  MartinMcCann 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recurring characters don't necessarily make companions - take Sergeant Benton, for example, who also travelled in the TARDIS in The Three Doctors, who rarely appears in most general lists. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackie has appeared enough with The Tenth Doctor, as well as traveling in the TARDIS, to include her as a companion, I say add her. 71.254.9.154 05:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctor himself seemed to be embarassed that he was caught travelling with Jackie: "When Torchwood writes my complete biography, please don't say that I travelled with her mum."  I can see the arguments on both sides here.  The problem is that since the programme has changed and the supporting characters are so much more important than they used to be, the line between "companion" and "not-a-companion" isn't as hard-and-fast as it used to be.  Jackie is an important supporting character, and she has now travelled in the TARDIS; however, she hasn't travelled in time and she's only gone from southeast London to Canary Wharf, which isn't really much of a trip.  Personally, I would say that "regular character" is now a more important distinction in Doctor Who than "companion": Jackie is a regular character, but (I think) not quite a companion (so far).  Adam Mitchell was a companion, briefly, but not really an important supporting character in the series.  In the classic series, nearly all companions were important supporting characters (with the possible exception of Kamelion), but not all important supporting characters were companions (e.g. Mike Yates).  Now the two sets are even more distinct.  Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I agree — sorry if I wasn't clear.  I was just trying to articulate what I think is the source of the confusion: in the classic series, "companion" equalled "significant supporting character" about 90% of the time.  In the new series, not so much.  However, I agree that we should reserve the infobox for unambiguous companions — which, I think, doesn't include Jackie at the moment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The nature of the new series mean their are recurring characters who aren't companions, and Jackie's affiliation (and Mickey's before he joined in School Reunion) came via Rose. Mickey travelled in the TARDIS in Rose but that didn't make him a companion. Jackie's so far only travelled somewhere she could have got to on the Tube :-) —Whouk (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackie shouldn't be consider a companion just for being present on one tardis ride. This looks to me like a result of oversimplifying the definition of a companion. Jefffire 14:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question isn't 'should one TARDIS ride be enough to make someone a companion?' but 'should the degree of her involvement in AoG/Doomsday (including the TARDIS ride) be enough to make someone who has been an important reccuring character/quasi-companion for the last two years a full companion'. After all, she's been involved in the series enough to make a case (albeit an extremely weak one) that she should be considered a companion already, similar to UNIT in the Third Doctor's era.  The problem is whether she should be compared with Benton and Yates (not companions) or the Brigadier (much stronger claim to companion status).  MartinMcCann 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But UNIT isn't considered a companion, as you note, with the only one who ever even makes it on the companion lists being the Brig, and even then the Doctor never refers to him as a former companion (notably, he's absent from the roll call during the Dalek scan of the Fifth Doctor's mind in Resurrection of the Daleks but admitedly that also omits Leela). Recurring character yes. To label her definitively a companion, no. And I'm not even sure there is a dispute notable enough to call it as such. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khaos, you yourself wrote on the Jackie Tyler page that Jackie Italic textaccompaniedItalic text the Doctor to Torchwood in the Tardis.  Accompanied indicates she is a companion, and yes, it is disputed as to wether hse is or not. 71.254.9.154 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed where? A dispute on Wikipedia doesn't count - WP:ASR, and it's not reported anywhere else. Show me where the dispute is widespread or notable enough to warrant its inclusion. Secondly, accompanying the Doctor in the TARDIS isn't a hard and fast criterion - a companion in the Doctor Who context is more than that. HG Wells accompanied the Doctor in the TARDIS. Marcus Scarman also did. Several human expedition members in Earthshock. Benton and Dr Tyler in The Three Doctors. They aren't companions. Liz Shaw never travelled in the TARDIS and she's a companion. If "accompanied" disturbs you, there are alternative phrasings. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackie Tyler- companion? 

message: I added Martha Jones as a companion in the infobox earlier, and it's been reverted for being "premature". I take the point, but I would argue that it's perfectly correct to call her a companion on the basis of the press release, even though she's not appeared in the series yet. What does everyone think? Obviously, the last thing we want is another companion-based edit war on this page! --IanIanSymes 14:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no intention of edit warring, so no worries people :). Basicaly I think we should wait until Martha actually becomes a companion before we include her, otherwise some people are going to be very confused when they read the article. Jefffire 14:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie doke, how about instead of putting it in the userbox, I add a couple of sentences into the main article about how the BBC have announced a new companion, etc? --IanIanSymes 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound good to me. Jefffire 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we list this info yet? We are technically making public information which has been embargoed until tommorrow. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. Mind you, Wikipedia wasn't the first, and won't be the last... --IanIanSymes 15:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian, the addition sounds good to me, great info! 72.92.135.251 00:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martha Jones 

message: I've been pondering adding a 3rd level section under Personality about his 'catchphrase' of "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry." to replace the repeated Notes/Trivia item which lists all the previous uses of this phrase, replacing the bulk of each item with a pointer to this proposed section. Any thoughts? --Billpg 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's used it so much that I think that would make sense. It wouldn't be necessary to itemise each usage in that article - it's so common now that just mentioning the first occurrence and one or two notable subsequent uses is probably enough. —Whouk (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I'm sorry. I'm so sorry." 

message: This season every episode somebody was 'named'. It just occured to me. Why mention who the president is in the alternate universe (last episode)? Why have the real name of 'the terrorist mom' that died in the alternate universe? There is no reason in the plot to do so. 
What are the names that seemed to drop and what's the reason behind them?--82.92.33.229 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's too much, down this line of inquiry, that would be good article fodder . . . . but for what it's worth: In the first of those two examples, I'd say, the reason for naming the "terrorist mom" is that it's a Cybermen episode, which is to say it's all about individual identity and the loss of same. In the second example, my feeling is, the name-dropping doesn't have much to do with any overarching theme about names or identities--it's just that the English president is somebody we've met in other episodes, and her political career in the "main" universe has been a really important subplot. Iralith 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it makes the show seem more real, personally. GusF 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the name dropping? 

message: Does Donna count as a companion? She got her name in the opening credits.
--86.2.173.190 13:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should obvious tht Donna is indeed a companion, as she is listed in the companion slot in the credits, as mentioned, and the level of thier involvment is t least on the level of Grace Holloway, and as grace is classified as a companion, Donna should be classified as a companion. Only trouble, though, is there is not a page on Donna to link to. I'm rubbish at it, but if either khaosworks or another big writer could ad it, it would be great.TheGreenFaerae 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Russel T. Davies is quoted in issue 373 of the Dcotor Who Magazine as directly referring to donna as a companion; "But the new companion? My immediate decision was that there would be two. A one-off Bride, to really hammer home the coming-and-going notion, and to take the curse off the tag of 'the New Girl', and then a proper full-time replacement, to launch Series Three." This quote, for verifiability, can be seen on page 14. The article is called 'Companion Piece'.TheGreenFaerae 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donna - The Runaway Bride 

message: Can't find a reference yet, but I thought I'd voice that this isn't a random addition.  The game (which I have not played, but came across this aspect previously) features time-manipulating villains where "Looker" mysteriously shows up each time.  It's a reference/homage from the game developers to the Doctor, but I'm not sure that we'll find a proper source.  Hopefully, though, since it is a nifty and unexpected reference to a generation that probably isn't going to get it (aka - most Pokemon players).--Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it might be legit, which is why I added the  instead of deleting the edit.  However, if by "most Pokemon players" you mean kids, I'm sure that any kids in the UK will get the reference. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly, but then again my experiences with folks that play the games is rather limited.  At any rate, there is probably some source that can be used, but it might take some digging. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Looker" 

message: I added a "finish" parameter to the infobox (with citation!), but it's not displaying.  I dropped a line at Template talk:Doctorwhodoctor, but I don't know how many eyeballs are on that page.  Can anyone else see the "last appearance" entry in the infobox?  Anyone know what's going on? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Further down there's was an instance instance of finish= that was negating your finish=blah. DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Thanks for finding and fixing that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox not displaying correctly? 

message: This catch phrase is taken from the moovie "Pierrot le fou" by jean luc godart (1965). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrot_le_fou
This is maybe not a direct reference, but i think93.16.169.183 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it's an unrelated use of the same joke.  Not notable. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not be so sure."pierrot le fou" is quite famous not only in France, and the use of the same joke is very unlikely i think. 93.16.169.183 (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allons-y Alonso 

message: Hi, I've had a quick read through the article and i think that in its current state, the tag requesting that it be re-written to avoid it sounding "in-universe" is probably defunct and no longer required. What D'y'all think? Darigan (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "IN-UNIVERSE / Fiction tag

message: Can someone please explain why the hyperlink for the Sub-Heading of "New Series Adventures" was removed from the novels listing? Why does it no longer link to New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)? Darkglasses (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Series Adventures Hyperlink

message: Rose Tyler, Martha Jones, Donna Noble, Captain Jack Harkness, Sarah Jane Smith, Mickey Smith, Astrid Peth, Jackson Lake and Rosita are listed as companions.
I fail to see how Jackson Lake, Rosita and Astrid Perth can be considered companions in any way. They're no more companions than Brigadier Bambera was to McCoy in Battlefield.
I'd also dispute Captain Jack Harkness and Sarah Jane Smith being companions reappearing guest stars maybe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.212.245 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, they are all backed up by reliable sources, which is the basis of inclusion of material on Wikipedia. We cannot base such categorisations on personal opinions, as that would be original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are companions for one reason: because the producers of the show said that they are.  That's all that matters. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Wilfred though? 'Confidential' does refer to him as a companion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.253.158 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion Objection 

message: I do not see why this part is on Personality, for one, the Regeneration has nothing to do with the 10th Doctor's personality and another is because the regeneration is already discussed, word to word as well, at the end of his biography section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.115.178.184 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  Removed.  DonQuixote (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regeneration section in Personality page 

message: Orthia's ideas strike me as germane and important, but including them as the bulk of the overview section implies that they are factual, or at least reflect a canonical consensus. A single academic's reflections and critique do not necessarily equal a consensus, and I don't suppose Orthia intends them to be objectively certain. Is the bottom-line message of the Tenth Doctor era really that "The Doctor's battle against evil is perpetual precisely because, like other liberals, he does not recognize the structural oppression that is everywhere around him." Maybe.
Perhaps her (thoughtful, probably accurate) perspective could be moved out of the overview, and into a dedicated section? --Hughstimson (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode synopses are bad. Orthia's words should, really, be one of several sets of academic opinions which should make up the Overview section. At the moment it's a stub, so it looks swayed.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lindy A. Orthia's opinion should be a section, not the overview 

message: I noticed that in the infobox, the titles of episodes are presented 1. in italics and 2. non-italics, but within quotes. Does anyone know which style is preferred on WP:
First appearance 	"The Parting of the Ways"
Last appearance 	The End of Time[3]
The same is true of episode names scattered through the text. All the best, Wordreader (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per our manual of style, single episodes are always in quotes, multi-part episodes, or serials, are in italics.  — Edokter (talk) —  09:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Edokter (talk) , Wordreader (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic question 

message: Once again the infobox is not displaying properly, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Vyselink (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox again 

message: Literally all the reader feedback appears to be from children who don't understand what Wikipedia is for. Is there a way to disable it for articles where it's entirely useless?Zythe (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Any admin can change the Article Feedback settings on the protection page.  — Edokter (talk) —  10:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we disable feedback? 

message: This has been changed to "The Day of the Doctor" however the general trend with past doctors is to cite their last appearance as "current" doctor, then underneath their last appearance in the series chronology. The 10th Doctor's last appearance as a current Doctor was in the End of Time, which needs to be noted. His appearance in "The Day of the Doctor" was merely a guest appearance. 86.174.188.47 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be something like this: The End of Time (regular), The Day of the Doctor (guest). It's what's done for all other doctors 86.181.163.171 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last appearance