Talk:The War Games

message: Does anyone have the novelisation to hand? I'm sure it gives a different explanation of the acronym from Exodus. Timrollpickering 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First I agree with Timrollpickering that the term was used long before Exodus, but, to the best of my knowledge the term is not actually used in the televised story (unless one of you eagle eared wiki Dr Who members can give me the specific episode and time in the episode that it is used so I can double check it AND learn the errors of my way). I first remember seeing it in materials published in the US in the early 80's (it may well have been used earlier in materials published in the UK) and was struck by the fact that when I finally did get to see the omnibus version of the story in the late 80's that it wasn't used. I have the two tape VHS of this story, but, don't know when I will have time to get to it so I won't alter the note about it now. It does need to be double checked and corrected if the current note is in error though.User:MarnetteD | Talk 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely not in the televised story. I don't have the Target novelisation, so I can't say for sure that it's first mentioned there, but this page, which is based on the Target book and gives the expansion of the acronym, suggests that it was indeed first raised in the 1979 novelisation - which also jibes with MarnetteD's recollection of seeing it in the 1980s. But of course a confirmation would be best. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked with a friend who has the novelisation. It's on page 34: "Ten minutes after the group had left the bedroom, General Smythe's Space and Inter-Dimensional Robot All-purpose Transporter, known by its initals SIDRAT rematerialized in the corner and resumed its appearance of a wardrobe." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't find my copy of the DG but with the more detailed info posted by Tbrittreid/Ted Watson (and many thanks for taking the time to do so!) I put on my tape of episode seven. The term is said three minutes (give or take depending on when you set your counter to zero between ep 6 & 7) into episode seven. The War Chief is explaining to the Security Chief why he is having difficulty in tracking our heroes in the "side-rat". As my watching the tape to get this info would be considered WP:OR I won't post this on the main page. Rather, I will leave this message here and we can direct anyone who still has a question about it to the proper moment in the story. Interestingly, the plot summary for episode seven does mention the use of the term SIDRAT at almost the right spot. Having missed this in my numerous times of watching this story I can't tell you how much fun it is to learn something new today - Many thanks again Ted. MarnetteD | Talk 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIDRAT 

message: The internal links that I removed were a result of my misreading those links.  Thanks for fixing it, and apologies for the mistake.  Brad E. Williams 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal links

message: This article states that 
: "In his final serial, the Second Doctor states that Time Lords can live forever, "barring accidents." When "accidents" do occur, Time Lords can usually regenerate into new bodies, resulting in extremely long life-spans."
(and the word "final serial" links to here.) This might be worth a mention in the Continuity section, as it contradicts a few things in other serials. It kind of implies that Time Lords don't just have extra lives, they're also ageless. But this is contradicted by, for example, the first doctor being clearly elderly, and especially in "The five doctors", I seem to remember he needed to sit down and rest occasionally. And in "Last of the Timelords", the Master prematurely aged the Doctor. He seemed to be just fast-forwarding time, implying that that's really what the Doctor would have looked like after 900 extra years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithcoriel (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity 

message: Have added a bit about Doctor not being able to speak French despite later episodes saying TARDIS should translate for him. Seems important to the overall continuity of the series. Although not very good I feel this is significant as it is included on the DVD and features Pertwee's last onscreen performance. If you want to delete it please outline reasons in discussion page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Items made by fans, whether they are included on a DVD or not (should we include the Mark Gatiss comedy skits from The Beginning box set?), are not relevant to the series. The other item is purely your speculation (why should the Tardis translate for him in 1966 when this isn't even devised by the creators of the show until 1976) and thus violate WP:OR and both items violate WP:Synthesis. The Doctor Who wikiproject, and indeed wikipedia itself, has very strict guidelines about these sorts of edits. If you want to take this to the talk page for the project and see what they say please do so but do not reenter them until you have a consensus from the members who oversee the project. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying but you did not read either of the policy links that I provided. It is clearly not part of the canonicity in 1966 and your trying to create a reason for it violates both of those links. Please read the policies involved and you will also want to learn how to sign your comments on talk pages. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that Wikipedia can be very frustrating to what is and is not allowed in editing. Please take your time to find out these policies by reading their pages. One other suggestion is that there is a Doctor Who wiki that does not have the restrictions that this wiki does. You may want to add your edits there. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Sheesh. The Doctor is a fictional character. You are obviously a fan but you have little idea how television programmes are made. The creators do not have time to fact check every little thing done in the shows history. (apologies edit conflicts caused this next sentence to be dropped off) The item cannot stay in until you gain consensus from the project for their inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devious 

message: At the end of The war games, the Doctor is returned to Galifrey to face trial for breaking the rule of non-interference. This rule seems similar to the Prime Directive of the Star Trek universe.
I looked up the Prime Directive and it seems to have originated with the Bread and Circuses episode, broadcast March 15, 1968. The war games was broadcast between April 19, 1969 and June 21, 1969, about a year after Star Trek. I have no idea when the strories for each were written.
The obvious question, was the rule of non-interference inspired by the Prime Directive or were they arrived at independently? I searched the various fan sites for both shows but could not find any information. Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.217 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately your question falls into the realm of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unless you can find an interview with the writers of this serial stating that they had seen the ST episode and used its ideas on purpose there is no way the info is relevant to this article. BTW the US air date is not a good marker to use. What would matter is when B&C aired in the UK and even then it is unknown whether Dicks and Hulke watched it. MarnetteD | Talk 01:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule of Non-interference vs Prime Directive 

message: The statement "sees both the first naming and first appearance of the Doctor's race, the Time Lords" is to my mind questionable. It is undeniably true that the Time Lord name is first used here, but of course a Time Lord had been on screen since the start of the series - the Doctor. Leaving this aside (and questions around Susan, we had already seen another member of the Doctor's race in the First Doctor's era - The Monk. Though he was not called a Time Lord it is explicitly stated that he and the Doctor come from the same planet. I wonder then if this should be reworded to say something like "sees both the first naming and first appearance multiple members of the Doctor's race, the Time Lords"? Dunarc (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In a word, No. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VmhVfNcVbqQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.143.138 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement about Time Lords at the start