Talk:Time Crash

message: Belgium is posiblya refference to Hitchhiker's guid to the Galaxy, where Belgium is cosidered to be the worst posible curse word, as the fifth Dr says "that's a bit un-dramatic isn't it? Belgium"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave'O (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Belgium

message: Damned Wii and it's lack of cut and paste! This confirmed on the BBC Doctor Who news page. Can another editor flesh this out? Thanks. GracieLizzie 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: Please don't add these characters to the cast without providing a reliable source which says they appear. Thanks. GracieLizzie 14:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack, Astrid, Martha, Turlough etc. 

message: can we add the plot now? i've just watched the episode, i'm sure its notable now.---- Lerdthenerd (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: plot?

message: Not a forum, whatever. But that was just brilliant! -- 86.153.147.167 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know, i know 

message: I notice that this episode used some distinctly Davison-era (and distinctly non modern) synth sounds in its soundtrack, undoubtedly some kind of reference to 80's Who. It'll need to be sourced of course. -- Kelvingreen (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered that myself but without a source... Any mention in the confidential? I haven't been able to watch the whole thing yet as it keeps crashing (too many viewers I expect).84.92.120.61 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it truly necessary to source something which is subjective but self-evident? Matthew Platts (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is.  I was editing the production section on another point, when the line was removed by another user.  This caused an edit conflict.  I therefore had to decide how to re-edit the section to resolve the conflict.  While I agree that the previous comment about the harp playing when the two Doctors look in each other's eyes was a bit too speculative, I reverted, but slightly edited, the line about the music containing references to the musical style of the 5th Doctor's era.  While a source for that might be nice, it's no more necessary to get a source for that than it is to get a source for the plot.   It's such an obvious departure from the "norm" of orchestral music for the new series.  Still, I don't mean to start an edit war; it was just a decision that had to be made at the time in order to submit the text I was actually there to add.  CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: The continuity section currently looks like a trivia section.  Is there any way we can integrate these bullet points into a cohesive paragraph?  There must be sources to indicate Moffat's a veteran fan who willingly wrote his script to include all this material (TV Zone for one). --Affably yours (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cty 

message: Khaosworks is getting a bit on my nerves as he insists the Doctors should be listed exactly as they are credited on the BBC website. This only creates confusion, as it is not clear what they link to. They should be listed as the Tenth Doctor and the Fifth Doctor respectively. I'm not going to edit war, requesting input instead.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree crediting them both as 'The Doctor' is confusing, the article should tell us which doctor is which.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Khaosworks also claims that he has credited them both as the doctor because the other multi doctor stories do the same thing, shold we edit those articles aswell?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* The idea in the cast list is to follow the official credits — that was the format agreed on in the style guide way back when: see the WikiProject page. They are not credited as the Fifth or Tenth Doctors, they are not referred to in the story as the Fifth or Tenth Doctors, they are simply credited as "The Doctor" - and that's been the way it's been done on screen ever since "The Three Doctors" when all of them were credited as "Dr. Who". Why there's going to be any confusion perplexes me somewhat, since the very header of the article explicitly states who is who and links it properly, the infobox says who they are and the entire point of the story is that they are both "The Doctor". The cast list is simply as credited, that's all. Where's the confusion when there's so many other links making it clear? There's only confusion if you want it to be. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. As such there is absolutely no problem in clarifying the cast list. Having them listed as "The Doctor" simply because they are credited that way has absolutely no basis in MoS and is absolutely just nothing more then fancruft. Ultimately, when there are two links pointing to different articles, they must look different as well.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say anything about fandom or fan site, so I'm wondering where that characterization comes in. And it seems rather bizarre to call following the official credits "fancruft". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the problem in clarifying the credits? Where does it say we must follow the credits by the letter? When you can answer these, then you may have a point.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a compromise, we can have the credits section as a transcription of the on-screen credits whilst differentiating between the Doctors in the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm...just realised that this doesn't solve "Time Crash" since, apart from the opening titles, there were no credits.  I guess we could use "The Parting of the Ways" as a Guide. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We shouldn't "transcribe" anything... This is an encyclopedia; it should be informative, so we should simply say "Tenth/Fifth Doctor". Why does everyone insist on being so vague?  — Edokter • Talk •  16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As was previously said using "The Doctor" is standard practice and reflects the credits (the whole point of the credits section). As has also been said the opening paragraph and infobox tell you which Doctor is which. There is no confusion. An encyclopedia should follow the official credits. Further clarification is given in the article. No problems at all. The character's name is not 5th Doctor but The Doctor as the credits should reflect.84.92.120.61 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We shouldn't cutpaste the credits as it's technically a copyright violation. We should clarify a) the same role played by two people, or b) the same person playing two roles. See The Family of Blood - Tennant was only credited as "the Doctor", but only doing so on the cast list neglects the 35 minutes he wasn't the Doctor. Will (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode on the DVD credits him as "The Doctor/Smith". DonQuixote (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the original broadcast credited him as the Doctor. Will (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I like the fact they're both listed as 'The Doctor', which is their name (and it's what the whole scene is about: two Doctors in one place; it's supposed to be a paradox!!)  Anyone still confused by this after reading the article will twig as soon as their mouse flicks over the links.  The point is, they're the same person. Gwinva (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With different actors portraying them. InsaneZeroG (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like Blaine's idea. The Doctor (fifth incarnation) is a good compromise. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's because I have never seen two James Bonds or Sherlock Holmeses appear in the same movie. And I think using "(fifht incarnation)" is a bad idea. They are known as the Fifth/Tenth Doctor, they link to their respective article, so it should show that way as well.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you never seen the original movie of "Casino Royale??" There are LOADS of James Bonds in that! :-)194.74.242.33 (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tenth Doctor/Fifth Doctor is a better idea.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, the problem is that there are two different points of view here.  One side wants to record the on-screen credits in an encyclopedic manner.  The other side wants an easy to refer to cast list.  Try to understand the other side before losing one's patience.  Personally, I don't see why we can't have both.  As I've said before, a compromise that includes both is to have an on-screen cast list as well as referring to the characters as Fifth Doctor/Tenth Doctor, etc. in the article and infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, neither character is known as the Fifth or Tenth Doctor. Neither of these names have ever been used on-screen in the context of a story. The designation of Fifth or Tenth (capital leters) is a fan convention. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simply not true. The ones why use these terms the most are actually the BBC and the producers of the show.  — Edokter • Talk •  13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which terms originated in fandom. There is no actual example of it being used in the context of a television story. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I definitely prefer "THE DOCTOR" for both. It's just so much more stylish, not to mention accurate.194.74.242.33 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with edotker, even when the doctor regenerates he is aware that he has changed, and in The Parting of the Ways, Rose is shocked by the doctor's change in appearance and accuses the doctor of being a slitheen.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the fact that he's still the same person, "The Doctor."194.74.242.33 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Debatable. "New man, new face, new everything." Plus, "I was you," with the distinct implication that his past self is a different person. ShaleZero (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely! That's what it's like at the moment. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me! --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still ambiguous... which is why I brought it up in the first place. We can't have similar looking links linking to different articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  09:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem?  All you have to do is mouse over the link and it tells you where it goes.  It displays as the credits do while still linking to the correct character.  MartinMcCann (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the problem; One should not have to "mouse over" or do anything else in order to know what article a link points to; it should be visible right away.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still not happy... it still violates WP:MOS.  — Edokter • Talk •  11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: like i said in my previous comment it is also now violating WP:EGG the link should read the same as the mouseover comment
(the link to the fifth doctor article should read fifth doctor not The doctor), also the links shouldn't have secret messages--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then...just change it to link to The Doctor (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: but it is still violating WP:MOS, the links need to be clear about what doctor is being played by whom?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's an unnecessary distinction implied by the phrase "what Doctor is being played by whom?" It is the same character, not two different ones. David Tennant plays The Doctor as does Peter Davison... 194.74.242.33 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Has it changed? Because when I click the link, I see them both credited as "The Doctor". --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fact File describes them as Fifth and Tenth, but the official credits refer to each of them as "The Doctor".  MartinMcCann (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that people are sometimes a bit dismissive of the Fact File, but it is an official BBC source, and it strengthens the argument for the clearer  Fifth/Tenth distinction.  And I wouldn't say I was "perfectly" happy with the compromise.  I just don't like to argue endlessly over small details (or anything for that matter). --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that the Fact File wasn't official - I was pointing out that the credits for the actual episode were different.  Given that we should go with what's stated on-screen for the credits, that's the source we should use for them.  MartinMcCann (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctor vs. Tenth Donctor / Fifth Doctor 

message: I'm not going to let this die just yet. Obviously, we lack consensus. It's evil, but...  — Edokter • Talk •  23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! That's what it's like at the moment. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me! --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still ambiguous... which is why I brought it up in the first place. We can't have similar looking links linking to different articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  09:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem?  All you have to do is mouse over the link and it tells you where it goes.  It displays as the credits do while still linking to the correct character.  MartinMcCann (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the problem; One should not have to "mouse over" or do anything else in order to know what article a link points to; it should be visible right away.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still not happy... it still violates WP:MOS.  — Edokter • Talk •  11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: like i said in my previous comment it is also now violating WP:EGG the link should read the same as the mouseover comment
(the link to the fifth doctor article should read fifth doctor not The doctor), also the links shouldn't have secret messages--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then...just change it to link to The Doctor (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: but it is still violating WP:MOS, the links need to be clear about what doctor is being played by whom?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's an unnecessary distinction implied by the phrase "what Doctor is being played by whom?" It is the same character, not two different ones. David Tennant plays The Doctor as does Peter Davison... 194.74.242.33 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Has it changed? Because when I click the link, I see them both credited as "The Doctor". --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fact File describes them as Fifth and Tenth, but the official credits refer to each of them as "The Doctor".  MartinMcCann (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that people are sometimes a bit dismissive of the Fact File, but it is an official BBC source, and it strengthens the argument for the clearer  Fifth/Tenth distinction.  And I wouldn't say I was "perfectly" happy with the compromise.  I just don't like to argue endlessly over small details (or anything for that matter). --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that the Fact File wasn't official - I was pointing out that the credits for the actual episode were different.  Given that we should go with what's stated on-screen for the credits, that's the source we should use for them.  MartinMcCann (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not over yet

message: *The Doctor
*The Doctor
#Blaine Coughlan (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Rather than continue the argument over crediting the Doctors as "The Doctor" (which is unclear which one is being reffered to) or Fifth/Tenth Doctor (which is contrary to the credits, perhaps hidden links should be used as follows:
The Doctor
The Doctor
MartinMcCann (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! That's what it's like at the moment. Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me! --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still ambiguous... which is why I brought it up in the first place. We can't have similar looking links linking to different articles.  — Edokter • Talk •  09:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem?  All you have to do is mouse over the link and it tells you where it goes.  It displays as the credits do while still linking to the correct character.  MartinMcCann (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the problem; One should not have to "mouse over" or do anything else in order to know what article a link points to; it should be visible right away.  — Edokter • Talk •  22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: This poll's been up quite a while now and the result seems to be quite conclusively for the "The Doctor/The Doctor" option. (Even one of the people who voted for Fifth Doctor / Tenth Doctor is perfectly happy with the way the article is now in any case.)  Blaine Coughlan (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not happy... it still violates WP:MOS.  — Edokter • Talk •  11:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: like i said in my previous comment it is also now violating WP:EGG the link should read the same as the mouseover comment
(the link to the fifth doctor article should read fifth doctor not The doctor), also the links shouldn't have secret messages--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then...just change it to link to The Doctor (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: but it is still violating WP:MOS, the links need to be clear about what doctor is being played by whom?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's an unnecessary distinction implied by the phrase "what Doctor is being played by whom?" It is the same character, not two different ones. David Tennant plays The Doctor as does Peter Davison... 194.74.242.33 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion??

message: BBC fact file unambiguously credits them as the Tenth and Fifth Doctor.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it changed? Because when I click the link, I see them both credited as "The Doctor". --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fact File describes them as Fifth and Tenth, but the official credits refer to each of them as "The Doctor".  MartinMcCann (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that people are sometimes a bit dismissive of the Fact File, but it is an official BBC source, and it strengthens the argument for the clearer  Fifth/Tenth distinction.  And I wouldn't say I was "perfectly" happy with the compromise.  I just don't like to argue endlessly over small details (or anything for that matter). --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that the Fact File wasn't official - I was pointing out that the credits for the actual episode were different.  Given that we should go with what's stated on-screen for the credits, that's the source we should use for them.  MartinMcCann (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't take ''my'' word for it...

message: I've tried to clean it up as best as I can, removing obvious and subtle speculation, trivialities and coincidences. Let's hope we can keep those pesky trivia bullet points away. Allons-y! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hemlock is correct.  Prose is better than bullet points.  This is mentioned in a few places in the manual of style, and is pretty straightforward if you take a look at other encyclopedias.  There's no reason that all the information people want included cannot be included in a prose-style article, so this isn't a content issue, simply a style issue.  kmccoy (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The project is also trying to push for a stylistic change. We're supposed to aim for prose such as in An Unearthly Child and "Doomsday (Doctor Who)". Will (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a reminder that bullet points are notes for future expansion into well-written sections, so it's a natural progression of article writing. DonQuixote (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet points condensed into text 

message: There are three references in the dialogue to Multi-Doctor stories. I reviewed the episodes in question and I'm pretty sure these are deliberate on the part of the writers.
1. The Three Doctors: At the end of the Three Doctors, the black hole that features in the story is turned into a supernova. Compare this with the supernova the Tenth Doctor sets off to nullify the black hole caused by the time crash.
2. The Five Doctors: The Tenth Doctor mentions the Fifth Doctor meeting "Time Lords in funny hats." The only time this happens during Davison's tenure is in "The Five Doctors". Also, the Fifth Doctor's words about the First Doctor in that episode: "I used to be a bit tetchy. But fortunately one mellows with old age."  Compare with the Tenth Doctor: "I was always trying to be old and grumpy, like you do when you're young, but then I was you."
3. The Two Doctors: When the Tenth Doctor puts on his glasses, he says "Snap!" The Second and Sixth Doctors both say "Snap!" when meeting each other for the first time. 
Again, I'm pretty sure these were intentional references, but this can be debated. Should these be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallan007 (talk • contribs) 
:Although you may be right, this would be original research, and so it can't be added. If you can find a notable independent source that states this, you could possibly put it in. --Brian Olsen (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidences are not references. Given that Doctor Who is a sci-fi show, supernovas and black holes and the like are to be expected. The Time Lords ALWAYS wear funny hats. Now, as for the age one, if it had been a word-for-word or close enough quotation of his line in Five Doctors, that WOULD be a reference. This one, however, is likely another coincidence. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Which was itself a sequel to "The Three Doctors", so we're back to the link.  Though that might be pushing it a touch.  MartinMcCann (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Multi-Doctor Stories

message: About.com has a piece that mentions references, but I'm not sure if they're a WP:RS or not. Any thoughts? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to help with our in-show references 

message: I got this from the Tardis wiki. Anyway, if the 5th Doctor met his future self, then why was he worried about his regenaration
in his final story? ADBandicoot (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "When incarnations meet" section of Doctor (Doctor Who) for a discussion of memory issues with respect to multi-Doctor stories. Basically it doesn't appear that the Doctor remembers all moments of such encounters at all times. Besides, when dying of spectrox poisoning, he might be a bit too distracted to think of that strange future Doctor he met for seven minutes a few years ago. --Karen | Talk | contribs 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1996 TV Movie and a few other episodes have equated "death" with "regeneration" so the Fifth Doctor asking "Is this death?" probably refers to that, as opposed to the big sleep. 23skidoo (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plothole 

message: Is this the first time that a crossover story has addressed the returning actor being older than he ever was during his own tenure (sometimes substantially older, like when Troughton returned for The Two Doctors)? I haven't seen all the crossovers, but I can't recall anything about that in the ones I have seen, or in the plot summaries I've read of the others. ShaleZero (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to your question is, yes.  It's been ignored in previous multi-Doctor stories. DonQuixote (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When he returned to the TARDIS, Peter Davison (born 1951) was almost exactly twice his median age during his Fifth Doctor heyday (1981-1984).  In The Two Doctors (1985), Patrick Troughton (Second Doctor, 1965-1969) had aged nearly twenty years, which was noticable.  But I suspect audiences silently expected and absorbed such changes in appearance in 1985 whereas now there is a fan culture always eager for in-universe explanations of out-of-universe facts.  In the case of Doctor Who, it's the strength of the fan culture that kept the idea of Doctor Who alive for a decade and a half when there were no regular TV series, so I'm not exactly going to complain about this! --Tony Sidaway 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of the Fifth's age

message: I've changed the lead to describe this as a "humorous encounter" between the two incarnations.  The style is very light and the script is full of in-jokes about desktop themes, Delgado's and Ainley's beard, Time Lords in silly hats and (of course) fan groups.  --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However that should not be equated to mean "non-canonical". Love & Monsters is just as light hearted and in-joke filled but last I checked it's still considered official canon. Unless Davies or the BBC say otherwise, this shouldn't be used to suggest Time Crash isn't canon, either, unless something occurs at the start of Voyage of the Damned to directly render it moot. 23skidoo (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean to say it was "non-canonical".  Much of Doctor Who is light-hearted and it's all the better for it.  In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that latterday imported terms like "canon" do not belong in discussions of Doctor Who, but that's another matter. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humorous

message: If anyone tries to source the Fifth Doctor's placement with DWM 390, then revert.  It does not state the position of this story, it merely gives a suggestion as to where it takes palce. StuartDD contributions 11:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to users 

message: We know know from numerous trailers and interviews that it's not the RMS Titanic, but a spacefaring replica. (I think RTD actually used the word replica in an interview, but I don't feel like searching for that tonight.)  The lifebelt merely says Titanic, not RMS.  If we don't want to say spaceship here, that's fine, but it definitely should not say RMS as there is no evidence in either Time Crash or recent VotD publicity that "RMS" applies.  It's a ship called the Titanic.  That's all the Doctor knows at that moment.  Let's leave it at that! --Karen | Talk | contribs 08:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic 

message: It was just pointed out to me that Time Crash is likely to be the last episode to use the 2005 version of the theme, since a new arrangement was introduced with VOTD. This is worthy of note, so I have added this to the Production section. I think a similar statement might exist in the Last of the Time Lords article, however since T.C. falls into the category of "mini-episode" I think it can be noted here as the last "official" DW production to use the 2005 arrangement. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important question is: can you cite this information? We need a reliable and verifiable source to confirm the information, otherwise it cannot go in. Please provide a source (preferably a link, but any news source will do).  — Edokter • Talk •  00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we have a source for the fact there a new theme tune was used in VOTD somewhere - so that would suffice. (as if that was the first with the new tune, then this is the last with the old tune) StuartDD contributions 10:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But there's no way of telling if they will continue with the new tune throughout series 4; it might be a one-off change and they might revert back to the old one.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They haven't yet! Blaine Coughlan (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And they won't. The new series uses the new arrangement, so that pretty much confirms that it will continue. 23skidoo (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Theme music

message: The article states that the Tenth Doctor's reference to the Fifth Doctor being "my doctor" is a meta-reference. There is a 'citation needed' tag against this.
I don't think a citation is needed, or even possible. The Tenth Doctor's comment is a meta-reference by definition. The phrase "my Doctor" only makes sense in the context of real-world viewing of 'Doctor Who', so the Doctor himself saying it is a clear breaking of the Fourth Wall.
Unless what we need is a citation or cross-reference explaining the origin/meaning of the phrase "my Doctor" in the context of the show? There's a reasonable explanation here, but nothing on Wikipedia itself.
I'm a newbie, so don't want to edit without first getting feedback from others.
CattOfTheGarage (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was really David Tennant speaking, in character. Can't put it in the article though. No sources. Digifiend (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: While not doubt meta-textual in its intention, it doesn't fully break the fourth wall: it's simply Ten saying he identifies most with Five out of his various incarnations. That's made pretty obvious by Ten's other comments, so the meta-textual interpretation would require some evidence (in real terms, Tennant's Doctor being Davison is enough, in Wikipedia terms, a stronger citation would be needed).  --Kiarboz (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  meta-reference? 

message: The wiki page for the Tardis states that the interior is a separate dimension from the outside - so how does the bow of the Titanic break through into the control room? (especially as the next episode shows the 'exterior dimension' of the Tardis with the Titanic)
JaffaCakeLover (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tardis walls?