Talk:The Three Doctors (Doctor Who)

message: I added thenote about the coninutiy for the second doctor (after The Invasion) but it was removed because...
"this mentioned in another note on this page regarding where in their chronologies this story takes place"
where?  I can't see it in the article.  If it is, then it should be in the continuity section.
StuartDD 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the above was more than two years ago, but he was right then, and he's right today. The edit summary in the revert of his addition says just what he claimed, and there was then and is now no such discussion anywhere in this article, yet analogous discussions are made for the earlier incarnations in The Five Doctors. Somebody should do this here but I don't know that what he claims about the second is right, and have no idea what, if anything, is said about the first, so it should be somebody else. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  4WIW I think the Second Doctor in The Three Doctors comes from midway through The War Games part 10 while he is in his cell awaiting the verdict from his trial (before Jamie and Zoe come along to spring him).2.24.70.141 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second doctor coninutiy 

message: Chris Achilleos very clearly used the cover of Fantastic Four #49 as the inspiration for the cover of The Three Doctors novelisation. However, the note I added to the article mentioning this has been removed, because the reference supplied (a picture of FF#49) was deemed insufficient to establish a link. I'd suggest that the link between the two is self-evident, given that the covers are practically identical, and citing the cover of FF#49 itself is a sufficient reference in itself. Does anyone have any specific thoughts on this issue? Marwood (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like where you're going with this, but it's way out on the fringes of original research. Unless you've got a source for Achilleos saying this? I've had a self evident item removed despite the artist admitting their source to me, because as the small minded correctly pointed out it was only on his say so. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be stated somewhere, it is not enough to show a picture and say that because this has the same composition it is inlfuenced by the other.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the same or similar composition, they're identical. Surely it is more absurd to think that Achilleos was in no way influenced by FF#49 and came up with an identical picture by chance? Marwood (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be my sketch of the Mona Lisa and the original - for wikipedia it has to be stated by a reliable source to be included. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Merely irrelevant. Perhaps Archilleos saw this composition in something else Kirby drew, or by someone else who saw it. Or not. Wikipedia is about quoting reliable sources, not putting together even blatantly obvious cause and effect. MartinSFSA (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Fair enough! Marwood (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantastic Four reference 

message: I want to know who deleted my article about dr tyler and please put it back ! This is not correct !  He is a real character of doctor who and even a compagnion (see the definition of a compagion in doctor who if you don't know )even if it is breafly !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdioa (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite a reliable source that says that he's a companion, and he'll be added. DonQuixote (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Trying to fit a character into a set criteria is original research.  Citing an external source avoids that.  Please cite a source. DonQuixote (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with DonQuixote. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fan forum. You need a reliable outside source for your assertion about Dr Tyler. You also seem to have missed the meaning of the phrase "similar" in the section you quote. Neither Isobel or Lynda has ever been listed as a "companion". You also need to look at WP:SYNTH since your editing in this situation seems to be an attempt to add your theory about Tyler's connection to characters in the revived series. It should be noted that there are plenty of fan pages on the net where you can share this theory. This is not one of them. MarnetteD | Talk 11:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr tyler 

message: I'm not entirely sure that the statement that the role intended for Jamie was reassigned to Benton is at all correct. According to most of the theories available, Jamie was only going to play a minor part at the end of episode 4. The on screen DVD notes state that most of Benton's role was taken from that intended for Captain Yates when Richard Franklin was unavailable. Benton's own intended role was thus transferred to Corporal Palmer. The DVD notes tend to be pretty reliable; far more so than the memories of those involved. 180.169.137.226 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant this for The Five Doctors talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 02:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No I did not. How astonishingly rude and patronizing. The article reads: "The production team also planned for Frazer Hines to reprise his role of Jamie McCrimmon alongside the Second Doctor; however, Hines was not available, due to his work on the soap opera Emmerdale Farm. Much of the role originally intended for Jamie was reassigned to Sergeant Benton." That is not the case. 180.169.137.226 (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. People sometimes have brain farts. As for the above text, you can add a  tag, excise it, or replace it with what a reliable source says. DonQuixote (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to assume good faith if MarnetteD wasn't always so vituperative and spiteful. Just read their history of posted remarks. Their above comment was mild by comparison. Frankly, all the casual wiki editors who try to improve articles are sick to death of the bullying from the wiki elite who monitor pages 24/7 and post nasty comments whenever someone dares to post something that challenges their superiority. Lives need to be got. I won't be posting anything more on this subject. Let the article continue to be inaccurate. Who cares?180.169.137.226 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From my observations over several years, the people who have a go at MarnetteD are either (a) people who edit through an IP address or (b) people who have logged in, but have few edits to their name. The established users who log in before editing rarely, if ever, raise an objection to MarnetteD's actions or comments. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to apologize for getting things wrong in my first post. I misread the first comment and was only trying to get the OP to a place where their concerns could be answered. However, how anyone can construe an 11 word sentence as "rude" is astonishing. My thanks to  and  for their replies. I have no comments on the IPs unsupported accusations. To bring this back commenting on content I agree with DQ that adding a "cn" tag or or sourced content is the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jamie/Benton/Yates