Talk:Army of Ghosts

message: I guess this episode happens in 2007: but can't see any other signals for dating. Has anyone any ideas?
I'd agree, I think it's almost a given that any stories in "Rose's time" are considered 2007 - and Yvonne did say "that was thing you saw shooting down the Sycorax at Christmas". As she didn't specify a specific Christmas, it's fair to assume she was talking about the "last" one - which we know was 2006 in the storyline. The_B 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a line somewhere in this story that states that The Age of Steel happened three years previously? Jsteph 10:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology? Any thoughts? 

message: I'm only just getting into Stargate: SG1 but I'm prtty sure there was a reference in this episode. Will someone more expert than I please confirm. 
When the Doctor was led into the big tech room there was a large spaceship which he called something that sounded like "A Jaffa Sunglider" there were also Sarcoffigi (spelling... I know) present. Now aside from Jaffaa (jaffah, whatever) sounding suspiciously like the SG1 characters I'm sure there was a similar scene in SG1 where Jack et al visited Area 51 where all the otherworldly tech was being stored and reverse engineered... I'm sure a door opened and a spaceship was shown within that lead to a main character declaring a very similar sounding line to the one the Doctor uttered...
Am I completely mad or did anyone else pick this up?
AWD
:I thought that too, but the sarcophagus is more likely a reference to Pyramids of Mars.Anon
Yes but the Jaffa reference with it? AWD
::The sarcophagus is definitely a Pyramids of Mars reference — Davies says so on the commentary. It was even in the script, apparently. Angmering 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm glad I wasn't the only one! --86.4.170.224 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctor says, "It's a Jethar Sunglider", not "Jaffa" (which would have been a Death Glider, incidentally). It may be an oblique reference, but it wasn't "Jaffa". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listening to them talk about it in Doctor Who Confidential, it turns out it may be "Jathaa" (Tennant says there is a double "a" at the end). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SG1??

message: There are rumblings of Captain Jack being in this, since this episode will essentially show us what Torchwood is for the benefit of the future series, it stands to reason that Captain Jacks involvmet with Torchwood may be explained in this episode.. James Random 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I doubt it - apparently he's already said it won't be explained at first how he even got out of the future in Torchwood, so it's more likely to be established in Torchwood. However, it has already been said that in Torchwood, something has happened to Jack, so he needs to find the Doctor. Personally I don't think that will be explained this episode either, if only as it will probably take away too much which could be used in the Torchwood plots. The_B 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In previous interviews, John Barrowman has stated that Captain Jack would not be in Season 2 of Doctor Who - but will most likely be making an appearance in Season 3. A quick search on YouTube for 'John Barrowman' will provide plenty of evidence for people that require it. Cybogoblin 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You know...

message: Apparently the latest DWM (as reported on Outpost Gallifrey's news page) has more cast members listed as part of "Block Three", which the news page says that it (i.e., Shaun Lyon) believes to be the "Rise of the Cybermen" two-parter, "Army of Ghosts" and "Doomsday".  I think there was some similar "Block Three" casting in the last issue.  Would it be appropriate to add some of this casting to this page (with an appropriate caveat), or should we wait till we have more solid confirmation of which episodes the actors will appear in? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outpost Gallifrey is now reporting Roger Lloyd-Pack and Yvonne Hartman will be appearing in "Army of Ghosts" and "Doomsday", playing the same characters they play in the "Rise of the Cybermen" two-parter. How is Outpost Gallifrey's accuracy in predicting future stories? Is it worth adding? QazPlm 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest seems to be that Yvonne Hartman is in Army/Doomsday but not in Rise/Steel (and that page has been adjusted). Should the possibility that the name might be a reference to Yvonne Hartley from Spare Parts be added here? Daibhid C 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block Three cast 

message: Look at this link http://www.drwho-online.co.uk/spoiler-cyberdalek.jpg. it has a picture of a Black Dalek and a Cyberman together
:Or at least, a photoshop of them... 24.136.38.121 00:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture spoiler

message: Isn't Regenerations a Radio 3 Programe and not a Radio 2 Programe?
:No, it was Radio 2. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regenerations 

message: My previous note was in reference to the idea that the TARDIS landing in Albert Square has already been done, in the Children in Need special Dimensions in Time, though my addition could have been more descriptive, heh. Phil 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar Speculation

message: Should we assume this is part of the end-of-season finale? It ends on a cliffhanger leading directly into AoG and Doomsday. Will (message me!) 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ending of Fear Her isn't a cliffhanger, it just ends on some foreshadowing. Rose and the Doctor are in no immediate danger, after all. Furthermore, none of the action in Fear Her seems to be relevant to what's to come. They could easily have inserted more episodes between this one and the finale, which should make it pretty obvious that it's not part of it. JRM · Talk 19:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fear Her]] 

message: Evidence People need to stop removing Mickey and Pete from the character/actor listing. Their appearance in the trailer is more than enough to justify their inclusion. --Jtfolden 19:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mickey & Pete 

message: Unless someone has a solid source for the Daleks beyond fan rumor, it shouldn't go in until we see the first one. Nor should Eccleston's return, Jackie's TARDIS trip (Which we already humiliatingly screwed up in Love & Monsters), Mickey or Pete's return, or, really anything. 
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a rumor mill. It's OK for us to not report the hot new fan speculation over the next week. In fact, it's much better for us to keep our mouths shut over the next week instead of putting up a bunch of untrue rumor that hurts our reputation. 24.136.38.121 14:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I must be some complete dumbass then, because I didn't hear any dalek extermination effect.  I tend to agree with the point about not feverishly reporting every fannish piece of speculation about upcoming episodes - there are other places for that sort of thing.  Personally, however, I don't tend to feel particularly "humilated" if someone else puts in some rumour which turns out to be dead wrong - as someone mentioned on David Baddiel's Radio 4 program this week (in context of wikipedia getting something wrong) - this isn't really the "Information Super-Highway", more like the global toilet wall! Any regular reader here will know that already. PaulHammond 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a big difference between saying "the Daleks are returning" and "it looks like some Dalek tech is being used". There are any number of explanations why something that looks like a Dalek exterminator is seen in the trailer. Maybe the tech comes from Torchwood, who got it from a Dalek. Maybe the Mill got lazy and just reused the Dalek effect. Or maybe, yes maybe, the Daleks actually will appear. At this stage, anything beyond "it looks like a Dalek exterminator" is just speculation. We didn't see a Dalek. No credible source has confirmed that there will be any Daleks. And for heaven's sake, it's less than a week 'til the episode airs, so what's the point of plonking in some speculation (which may or may not turn out to be right) when very soon we'll know for sure? Wikipedia isn't the place for guesses, as plausible as they might be. --DudeGalea 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also problematic to say that the trailer "suggests" the Daleks are returning - that implies a voiceover like "And maybe... DALEKS!" Phil Sandifer 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "... IN COLOR!" ? :-) --DudeGalea 16:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, maybe, maybe, maybe. I'm not saying that your speculation is unreasonable. But it is still speculation at this stage, until some credible source actually says that there are Daleks. Or a trailer shows them, explicitly. Wikipedia isn't the place for making logical inferences, as fine as they are in the rest of the world. That just isn't the point of wikipedia. --DudeGalea 16:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it appears in Torchwood. Or in the Christmas special. Or they just wanted to release a new Dalek figure - Dapol released a number of Dalek colorings that never appeared in the series. Again, I'm not arguing that there's no chance that there's a Dalek in Army of Ghosts. What I am arguing is that there is not evidence that is reliable enough to include in Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced info

message: Anyone actually have a source for this rumor? 24.136.38.121 23:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like all they are doing is showing a clip from Series 1 at some point.  PaulHammond 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eccleston

message: Also, can someone link to the Ghostbusters rumor please? 24.136.38.121 23:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outpost Gallifrey

message: I had a snoop when I was at work, I know who the next assisstant is :p James Random 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He he! 

message: Is this the story (or first part of a two parter) that will feature the Cybermen? The title suggests it and if the season follows the same structure as last year, it would make sense. DavidFarmbrough 9:36 (BST) 16 Sep 05
:I'm under the impression that the Tom MacRae two-parter, episodes five and six, is supposed to be the Cyber-story, although I have no inside knowledge on that. Angmering 22:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This story is the second of this season to feature the Cybermen and possibly also the daleks. The first story to feature the Cybermen were the episodes Rise of the Cybermen and Age of Steel - Whilst the title of this first two-part episode does suggest cyberman involvement, I believe that it is actually referring to ghosts inthe sense that loved ones reappear in the episode and Peggy Mitchell (Barbara Windsor) is said to be visited by the ghost of Den Watts.... 212.219.119.130 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Cybermen 

message: * In the trailer, near the beginning, does the Doctor point up and say 'We sent that thing back to Hell!' or, 'Send that thing back to hell!', and is this worth putting in the article? Sierra 1 22:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit of confusion 

message: Will we see the Cyber Controller again - cause I'm hoping he was the one that escaped at the end of Age of Steel since he only took a fall into a burning building, so a cyberman might be able to withstand that.... James Random 09:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to Lumic, I presume? PaulHammond 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now what I wanna know is, how come the Cyberman have taken over the parallel Earth?  I thought Mickey had them beat, and was just off to Paris to start deactivating all the rest of them.  PaulHammond 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I wouldn't have thought Lumic would just leave five other Cybermen factories unguarded and unprotected now would he? ;) 
Also, where is the source for the return of Lumic, who has been added to the Cast List? If it is as the Cyber Controller, Lloyd-Pack didn't provide it's voice if I remember correctly. The_B 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He did provide the Controller's voice, but I've seen no evidence that he's in Army of Ghosts. —Whouk (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that Cyber Controller definitely won't appear in the episode, it's just I'm yet to see any conclusive evidence that he definitely will. The_B 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I wanna know is:  

message: Yep - she does appear in it and, surprisingly enough, she's supposed to be the same Sally from Age of Steel the one who was supposed to be getting married before she got cybermanified. :D James Random 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assume it might be "our" universe's version of her... The_B 16:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Gareth listed in the credits her husband-to-be? 81.76.121.244 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In the end it looks more like someone saw Catherine Tate as "The Bride" and assumed it to be Sally. The_B 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rochelle Gadd as Sally 

message: So really, instead of been deadified, she might become a cyberman...?
**Or even turned into a dalek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRandom  (talk • contribs) 
::I don't think the quote is enough to presume she becomes a Cyberman, but something else could happen to her as well. The_B 14:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being dead would be better.  And I don't think they'd do that to Rose.  PaulHammond 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't put it past them; I know if I was writing it I would do that. Vitriol 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  She's not Rose Tyler. Not any more. 

message: ...Bluetooth headsets? Is there actually any confirmation that the Torchwood members are, like point #21 suggests in the Notes section, wearing the same earpods from Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel? I've only seen Freema Agyeman's character wearing an ear-mounted device, and that looked like an ordinary Bluetooth headset, not a Cybus earpod. Resakov 09:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, I suppose EarPods were just that Universe's version of Bluetooth headsets, so I see how that assumoption could be made... The_B 12:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see the connection. I guess I should've been more explicit and questioned whether the speculation about earpods should actually be in the article. Couple that with these two very Bluetoothy screengrabs (http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/774/aogpreview264jp.jpg and http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7739/aog27ve.jpg), and I'm wondering if point #21 should be removed for being speculation. I'd do it myself, but, y'know, noob an' all :} Resakov 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earpods or... 

message: See image to the right: the RT cast list is wrong, and that Pete Tyler and Jake Simmonds appear in this episode. Since they appear, they should be added to the cast list.--Keycard (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep...I remember that Highlander: Endgame trailer where Connor and Duncan MacLeod jump into some sort of dimensional portal...wait a minute, that didn't happen in the movie, did it?  ;)   Anyhoo...just chill out and wait for the episode to air; then we'll know for sure.  DonQuixote 19:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added them back in, and referenced it (link to the screenshot). Will (message me!) 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed: my understanding was that the Next Time dealt with the whole story and not just AoG. A screenshot from it isn't evidence they're in AoG. Plus, while that's probably Jake, I don't see that you can make it a certainty from that shot. 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And indeed, as we can now see from the episode, Jake and Pete weren't in it and that screenshot is indeed from Doomsday. —Whouk (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in RT cast list 

message: The BBC are releasing a New Style (As seen in Dalek [2006]) Red and Black Dalek, suggesting that they might appear in this weeks episode....
So why the black Dalek?
It stands to reason that these are parallell universe daleks just as we're faced with parallell universe Cybermen. We know that despite the need for balance, Universes will diverge from each other, the little tykes. 
::So!
My theory is this! That in some absence of an emperor dalek somewhere along the line, the Daleks did what they did in our universe oh so long ago - select a Supreme Dalek as a Field Commander. 
So why the Red Dalek?
Dunno, I just know that there's a toy of it on Daleklinks its BBC released, so! Possibly it is just a ship commander like the old ones. Apart from that, don't knwo if it'll even appear.
** not sure which one you are talking about but unless it's black with black dots/globes it's old stock? if it's from eyeofhorus, ignore it as that site posts fakes...
**No, definitely new model and definitly on listen as "coming soon".
(I remember reading about the famous Black Daleks. Apparantly they're like commanders, and have a lot of influence in the Dalek army. --Rai 19:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red and Black

message: You might find this interesting...
Several sites have been asked to edit / change their reviews by the BBC and some pre-review posts on major forums like Outpost Gallifrey have been edited/deleted.
example:
google cached copy of SFX review
currently edited SFX review
:What's the difference? —Whouk (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put the original comment, but I had a look, and earlier there was an extra part about the alternate universe (if I remember correctly) that has since been removed, presumably when Google's cache was updated.  The_B 00:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC censoring websites / requesting edits 

message: There might be a hint starring us in the face on the cover of the Doctor Who Annual 2007, it shows the Doctor ALONE with the Dalek saucer fleet in the background.
:Could just be illustrating a story in the annual. And the Doctor being alone is probably more about not spoiling the new companion than anything else. —Whouk (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now I think we have pretty good evidence that the Daleks are in it! :-) --DudeGalea 18:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalek hints? 

message: Is this the first time we've seen Christopher Eccleston on screen in Doctor Who since the reprise at the start of the Children In Need special?
Yes, I think so. There haven't been any "flashbacks" before the one in this episode, so yes. --D'Argent 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshot? The_B 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Eccleston 

message: I recently saw a clip from an old Cybermen serial (I'm only fully familiar with the new Doctor episodes) and in it there were loads of Cybermen breaking out of clear plastic stuff. As soon as I saw that in this episode I was reminded of that clip. Does that bear adding as a note, with the actual name of the serial (I don't know it) included? --81.155.124.36 19:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in black and white, and there were several levels, with Cybers climbing down ladders/stairs on either side. --81.155.124.36 19:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tomb of the Cybermen it is then :) I think that clip made an appearance in Confidential after either Rise... or Age... David 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that's the one. There's a pic of the scene in the article. I've added a note, confirmed by the commentary --81.155.124.36 19:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cybermen entrance

message: Ghostwatch
Now
A deliberate reference? I think so. The_B 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostwatch 

message: Does anyone else feel a note on Rose's Gelth comment linking to fan speculation prior to this episode's airing would be appropriate? ZoraJolteon 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like original research to me. -- MisterHand 02:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelth 

message: Who changed the standard layout and why? It has been Notes ever since I first visited these pages? I also find it much harder to read the bulleted points, rather than the numbered points. What does everyone else think? Wolf of Fenric 00:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#"Notes" section in episode articles. --Kwekubo 02:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see why they changed it, but I agree that it's much harder to read. Bullets are great for short lists, but they look horrible for long blocks of text. Everything just runs into everything else. Ugh. Still, the decision's been made. --DudeGalea 09:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No decision has been made, its really only  doing this. Tim! 09:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why rock the boat? It was fine how it was. Wolf of Fenric 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notes" violates the MOS. That header is to be used for footnotes, not bits of trivia. -- MisterHand 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has 'Notes' changed to 'Trivia' and not just on this episode? 

message: "This two part story marks the first time that the Daleks and the Cybermen have met in the canonical series." - Should this point not be included on the Doomsday page, rather than here? They haven't actually 'met' yet - the trailer showed that happening next week. This episode was more akin to stories like The Five Doctors, which featured a Dalek and Cybermen who did not meet...(Oh and nice Chain of Command reference in the point above). Wolf of Fenric 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daleks and Cybermen Together

message: Am I crazy of did they call it they Canary Wolf building? A possible hint to Rose's fate? Probably bad hearing on my part--152.163.101.5 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the "Sarf Landan" accent ;) The_B 14:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Canary Wharf'' 

message: Is the Doctor giving a variant of (me)brane theory in his explanation of the ship - and would the void ship thus be brane-less?
Jackiespeel 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YOU are braneless. ;) Vitriol 20:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Void Ship

message: I half feel like adding a note regarding the previous crossover between EastEnders and Doctor Who.  Any thoughts?  Morwen - Talk 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a note should be added on the fact that when they were tracking the signal early on in the episode, their screen showed the opening sequence to EastEnders. Ok, it's just central London, but with three EastEnders characters in the episiode, I reckon the joke wouldn't have been lost on the makers.88.6.102.102 09:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EastEnders

message: Y'know I swear that some guy on one of the programmes (probably Ghostwatch) said that some of the ghosts had begun to talk. Vitriol 00:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Doctor is watching television, the Ghostwatch hosts says, "On today's Ghostwatch, claims that some of the ghosts are starting to talk..." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not going to be expanded on :/ Vitriol 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably people imagining it, like Jackie and the cigar smell. 84.71.171.146 19:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostwatch 

message: Khaosworks, I was just wondering why you moved the trivia about Freema Agyeman being touted as new companion (which, by the way, appears to be confirmed by an embargoed press release from the BBC for tomorrow!) to Doomsday? I know it's a bit of a spoiler, but doesn't it belong here? David 17:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not want to put Agyeman's confirmation as companion in this episode because it was a spoiler, and we should try to avoid spoilers for future episodes ("past" references are okay). I tried several permutations, but it boiled down to the fact that the Sun note was there simply to set up either the fact that the Sun was wrong (which, as it turns out, it wasn't), or to do the reveal that Agyeman's the new companion. My view was that I, at least, couldn't construct it in such a way that preserved the Sun note and actually made it relevant without being inaccurate or spoilerish. So I moved it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not the fact that she dies that's the spoiler. We don't have to note that she dies; it's apparent from the synopsis. The problem is that the Sun note was there originally to first talk about speculation that she was going to be the new companion, then after that it was used to say that ho ho, the Sun was wrong since Adeola died. We can't say that the Sun was wrong anymore because of the current announcement, and I don't think that a person who is expecting to be spoiled about the episode expects to be spoiled about Rose leaving and Martha Jones coming in, so Martha Jones shouldn't be in there. So what's left? A bare note that the Sun said this about Freema Agyeman being the new companion standing on its own is left devoid of context, because the original relevance: the Sun being wrong, is no longer operative. Again, I tried constructing it in a way that wasn't irrelevant, out-of-place, inaccurate or spoilerish and I could not do so, which is why I shifted it to Doomsday where, once it's apparent Rose leaves, Martha coming in is not that spoilery anymore. If anyone can come up with a construction that avoids all these problems, please do. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about just "Freema joins the cast as a regular"? That doesn't mention Billie leaving. Lonemagpie 11:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why move the trivia about Freema Agyeman? 

message: Re: the very minor grammar change, from "Dalek Supremes" to "Daleks Supreme" - the Supreme part of the name suggests there's only one (either at a time, or in total) - if so, it should just say:
:In the original series, all Black Daleks seen from The Chase onward were known as "Dalek Supreme".
If however there have been multiple Black Daleks at the same time, the plural should stand.
David 23:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Daleks Supreme are there? 

message: Barely worth an article of her own, surely? I'd redirect her entry to here, apart from she features in more than one episode. She's not really a "villain" nor is she a "alien" so - I dunno, what do people suggest we do about Yvonne Hartman ? The_B 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Default position is to redirect it to the first episode she appears in (which was done with Dr Constantine). Done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yvonne Hartman 

message: Did I see Simon Pegg dressed all in Burberry in the 'Trisha' clip? Maybe someone could check and update the entry if it was him. Pandini 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link Looks very similar, but I don't think it's quite him. The_B 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simon Pegg cameo? 

message: Is it the same "void" as in the Troughton-era story The Mind Robber? It seems to be similarly brilliant white, and its description seems to match. For that matter, Troughton's Doctor was incredibly apprehensive about his respective "void". We know how Davies loves throwing in random continuity references that nobody sane will pick up on (heck, "Rels"?). Is this one of them? Though it's hard to be certain, it seems like a solid possibility. Does it, therefore, warrant pointing out? --71.139.18.66 09:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be the same, but it's entirely speculative and there's no evidence that it was RTD's intention, so it shouldn't go into the article. We don't see inside the Void so we can't say it's white. —Whouk (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We sort of do, in that when the wall is "opened up" it becomes a glowing white void. When the wall "wraps" around it at the end of Doomsday, sealing the hole, the glowing whiteness is sealed away behind a dull white wall. Still, yes, it could be clearer. And fair enough --71.139.18.66 12:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also, the reference guide seems to make the same conclusion -- then extends it to Logopolis. Plus -- if you recall -- the Doctor's reaction at the beginning of Rise of the Cybermen, what he describes of what he expects outside, is essentially the same as in The Mind Robber. All things considered, it seems safe to assume that they intend this Void as the same Void from the original series. --71.139.23.128 22:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Void place 

message: I live in America, so I'm not sure if this is relivant but I've never heard an electrician messure anything in horsepower per second and I'm pretty sure that's not what electric companies sell by. Would the trivia still be correct in saying that a Watt is Metric and not English. I mean, we do use centimeters sometimes too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.111.211.82 (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The note makes the distinction between metric and imperial, not "English". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Watt isn't an English Messurement? 

message: "Torchwood traces the Doctor's interference signal to the Powell Estate at postcode SE15 7GO. This is a fictional postcode, but London SE15 is Peckham and Camberwell, London."
Technically London SE15 is Camberwell only, Peckham is SE5...I've lived in the area in the past so should know my area (currently live around the corner from camberwell now, but lived in peckham before) :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.44.145 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postcode 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Pass.
:2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Some references changes to the primary source rather than outpost gallifrey
:3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Changed "Positvely reviewed by critics" to "Generally well recieved by critics" as the former implies there were no negative reviews, and there was probably one somewhere in the world
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images?: Pass
Future improvements could include checking for any notable negative reviews if this has not been done and finding alternative references for thosr that link to outpost gallifrey which is essentially a fansite.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Million_Moments (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: As soon as the Tardis 'lands' in this episode, Rose presents her mum with a bag full of clothes to wash.
Is it the case that the Tardis does not have a washing machine on board?  If so, I think we need to be told. --Ndaisley (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washing Machine? 

message: Should it be mentioned in the continuity section that this episode is the first occurrence of the Tenth Doctor's catchphrase, and that he speculates on "Alons-y Alonso" (which finally happens in the 2007 Christmas special? 101090ABC (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First occurrence of "Allons-y!" and mention of "Alons-y Alonso" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Army of Ghosts. 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/20060721104122/http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/army-commentary.mp3 to http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/army-commentary.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified