Talk:Time War (Doctor Who)

message: And all the timelords?  Wasn't this stupid and hurt future Dr who stories?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how many times the Daleks have been killed off, and that Gallifrey was dead to begin with, I doubt it had much impact. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that many novels and audio stories and such since the relaunch have been scrambling to make sense of this Time War business and salvage previous works or ideas to fit with it, I'd say it had long reaching effects. I remember being pretty disgusted with the relaunch series after the first two episodes and didn't pick it back up for a few years. I also am fairly certain that many Doctor Who fans consider the entire new series to be a spin-off in its own right and just as subject to non-canonity as the books and comics are. Davies himself seems to gloss over the whole issue when it's brought up, meaning he probably didn't think too far ahead and just wanted an excuse to regenerate the Doctor and start the series off with a bang. I can't say it truly hurt the future stories cause they're still coming out (albeit the show's new format pushes through them way too fast), but I think it definitely stirred things up. Oh, and Gallifrey wasn't dead to begin with, so I don't know where the hell you're getting that from.--Dakmordian (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public reaction to killing off Galifrey? 

message: I doubt it would be worth mentioning on the article itself, but the latter description bears resembalance unto the Temporal Cold War as was seen throughout the length of Star Trek: Enterprise. Even though it's a story-arc they never properly done right, in my opinion and seeing as UPN forced it on them..
Though, the otherwise article has listed the Time War under Comparisons, so I s'pose a See Also might be fitting in some way..
What do you think?DrWho42 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latter type of Time War and the Temporal Cold War 

message: Should some referance to be made to the speculation aboiut the up and coming series ending double episode Army of Ghosts/Doomsday?
:It is rumoured that this episode contains a war between the Cybermen and the Daleks, two species who have used time travel. This war could be some form of Time War.
::"Speculation", "rumoured", "could", "some form"; all these words should tell you that this is a bad idea. There's no basis whatsoever for assuming that there is any non-superficial connection, at least at this time. Let's wait and see, please.--SB | T 09:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Whatever you say. 213.162.107.4 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 2 Finale 

message: Was the Doctor really speaking literally when he said he was at the "fall of Arcadia"? I think this is probably a figurative reference to the destruction of Gallifrey, rather than a planet called Arcadia. The Wikipedia entry for Arcadia (utopia) describes it as a "poetical name for fantasy land (having more or less the same connotation as Utopia)". This fits with the theme of Time Lords-as-lesser-gods that has been particularly evident during the Tenth Doctor's tenure.
:Interesting interpreation, but I'd adhere to Occam's Razor for this one, particularly since RTD is fond of inserting these little continuity Easter Eggs into scripts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall of Arcadia 

message: Is there a way to acknowledge the apparent attempt to dovetail the Gallifrey audio series with the events of the Time War without delving into original research?  In Gallifrey:Panacea Braxiatel speaks of "rumours out there in the big wide universe — more than rumours, in fact — that something's coming to Gallifrey, something worse than you could possibly imagine", which is almost certainly intended as a reference to the Time War; he also says that if the Imperiatrix had ruled Gallifrey, the dismal future he's heard tell of could have been prevented, alluding to "what you saw in the Matrix projections — remember, Romana?"  This is probably a reference to the Matrix projection of Imperiatrix Romana obliterating the Dalek Emperor from history in Neverland, reprised (with the Nekkistani taking the Daleks' place) in Gallifrey: Imperiatrix.  Along with the extremely weakened state of Gallifrey at the end of the series (facing economic and social collapse as well as the Free Time virus rampant among the population), it all looks very much like an attempt to set up the Time War.  But how do we say that while avoiding OR? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it MAY be considered Original Research on my part, I'd have to say that from what I've seen of the various audio-stories done in the last 5-6 years since the show's revival it would appear that many writers are trying to find ways of making this whole silly Time War nonsense fit in the established Doctor Who continuity. The Gallifrey series certainly could be seen as an attempt to do this, and we can't forget the oft-debated Enemy subject, either. I've heard rumours that a fourth season of Gallifrey was in the works, though that may have been outdated and it fell through, I can't remember. If the series does continue, perhaps it will shed more light on this.--Dakmordian (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Gallifrey'' audio series 

message: Where'd it come from?--172.134.61.220 22:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image ? 

message: I remember this article had a cited reference to RTD describing Genesis of the Daleks as being the first strike in the Time War? Why was this removed?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genesis 

message: I've excised this from the EDA section:
:(At one stage it was also rumoured that the novels' Enemy would be revealed to be the Daleks, however issues with the estate of Dalek creator Terry Nation, which co-owns the rights with the BBC, prevented them from being used.)
AIUI, the Enemy were never the Daleks (for one thing, the Enemy supposedly comes from Earth) though I'm sure I've read Parkin say somewhere that he unsuccessfully pitched the idea of a book where the Daleks work themselves up into incorrectly believing that they were.  The Daleks were supposed to be Sabbath's employers in the post-TAC EDAs, and were prevented from appearing there because of the rights issues, but that's nothing to do with any Time War per se so doesn't belong in this article. --86.128.137.136 18:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed incorrect statement 

message: One thing I found interesting while watching Bad Wolf for the first time: the Daleks, according to Jack, "vanished out of time and space", to which the Doctor replies that they went off to fight the Time War. Jack thought it was just a legend. That, to me, reads like a pretty important element of how the Time War was actually fought. I know some fans are uneasy, for example, with the idea the Time Lords have actually disappeared from history, but Jack effectively says the Daleks have done so here. Should this be mentioned, and if so, in what sort of context? --77.99.30.226 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Time and Space 

message: I'm convinced that this is actually a shot of the destruction of Skaro. There is nothing in the animation it's taken to say it's Gallifrey, and the image appears to be a modified shot of Skaro from the opening of the TV movie. Can anyone provide a citation which says this supposed to be the Daleks destroying Gallifrey and not the Time Lords destroying Skaro? If not, I'm going to change the caption on the image Marwood 08:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Destruction of Gallifrey" 

message: is it worth mentioning  that the dalek has been depicted  to have timetravel technology  from some of there earlyest appearances
from there third appearance onwards they have been depicted to have timetravel technology.  the main article  mentions that  as early as genesis of the daleks pre emptive strikes  have been made between the timelords and  daleks.  i was wondering if it was worth mentioning that  the daleks have had long use of time travel technology and are prepated to manipulate it for their own ends.
perhaps we can also  talk about  known dalek tactics and use of time corridor technology.  does anyone know why   when the daleks  showed capable of building timeships that they more oftern use corridor technology? 
it also would make sence considering the semming continuity errors between the dalek invasion of earth and   the original daleks  series.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr noire (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The chase 

message: I'm not sure when this passage was added (I searched back through May and then gave up), but it seems rather dubious to me:
:Davies, lead writer and Executive Producer for Doctor Who, has stated that he considers the Doctor's former companion Romana's adventures canon during the period in which the series was cancelled (including leaving E-Space and becoming President of the Time Lords during the period of the Time War with the Daleks), meaning that Romana most likely perished in the final battle.
I added a , but I'm inclined to remove it altogether.  I sincerely doubt that Davies said any such thing about considering something "canon", because he's made it perfectly clear that he doesn't deal in that concept.  What I suspect this represents is someone reading (or hearing about) Davies' Time War story in the Doctor Who Annual 2006 and the fact that it references President Romana, and jumping from that to a proclamation about "canon".  (Remember folks, there is no such thing as a Doctor Who canon.)  I'll leave the paragraph up for now, but unless someone defends it soon I'll remove it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right — it's gone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romana 

message: I have long thought that this preference ( or insistence) on "reliable" 2ndary Sources (by the WickedPedia) is completely inapplicable articles on current TV programs.  Persons see the programs and report what they see.  Citing some magazine that discusses the program doesn't improve the article over what people saw.  The programs are immediately available on DVD or YouTube.  IMHO, the WickedPedia should abandon this rule relative to articles on current TV shows.  (EnochBethany (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary vs 2ndary Sources

message: I overhauled the entire article (save the spin-off sections) as to give a unified presentation of the subject. This is what a reader would be looking for, not a chronological collection of statements about the Time War in the sequence they were first revealed. This is in keeping with similar articles, e.g. The Doctor (Doctor Who) does not beging with the information provided by the First Doctor in the first episode, adding more and more in a chronological sequence either (and one can clearly see that in that first episodes, the Doctor - though already a time travelling alien - was not a Time Lord from Gallifrey with the ability to regenerate, with the Tardis one of many, which he had stolen etc.)
Of course, I have retained the various episodes in which details were revealed in footnotes. Str1977 (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But can you really say what Doctor Who was NOT? Unless there is a reliable 2ndary source saying he was NOT something, how are you going to "prove" what he was not?  Did not his very name (WHO?) imply that there was much unknown about him?  So, they started with the germ of a character and slowly developed it to utter absurdity (not that it is unentertaining absurdity).  (EnochBethany (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: The article currently states 
 Whereas earlier episodes implied that history was either immutable ... or capable of being 
 changed only by very powerful beings< ref >Pyramids of Mars (1975); Remembrance of the Daleks 
 (1988)< / ref >
I don't know about the second (though stories like "Genesis of the Daleks" would also be relevant for the issue), but the first is unsupported. It used to be referenced by the The Aztecs, a 1964 serial. However, the episode does not actually state this but rather the opposite. In the story line, Barbara tries to change history by making the Aztecs quit human sacrifice in an effort to ultimately ensure their survival. The First Doctor vehemently tries to persuade her otherwise, not because history is immutable but because he considers it wrong to do so, given the unforeseeable consequences. That Barbara fails in her attempts is quite different from statements that no change could be achieved. Also, that her actions actually change a single man (the Aztec high priest) though not the entire people, seems quite in keeping with the "some things are fixed, others can be changed" reasoning provided by the Tenth Doctor.
However, the whole discussion makes me wonder whether this "changing history is so much easier after the Time War" is actually accurate? (Glossing over the fact that the differences are most probably just writers not being able to make up their minds and stick with it.)
Str1977 (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to remember that if someone reassembles the Key to Time, anything is possible.  All the person has to do is command the Key to Time.  So, best to just take this all as a big comedy.   The whole series seems to have become a grand exercise in an ultimate Byzantine absurdity.  (EnochBethany (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History immutable?

message: I just realised that there was a discussion way back in 2007 (mediaeval time on the Wikipedia scale!) to suppress the infobox as inappropriate for a fictional event, and that someone put it back a little later.  I would suggest removing it once again as it's pure in-universe stuff. Mezigue (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ages ago - unless you have a TARDIS :-) I agree with your suggestion that it should be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 12:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox redux  

message: Virtually all of the refs are WP:SECONDARY. MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing