Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who)

Broadcast and reception

We've added viewer numbers and critic comments, but is there somewhere where can get viewer opinion from? (I remember reading that at one stage the BBC had a viewer application rating). I ask because I don't know any Dr Who fans who liked this story (think plot hole, ambiguous Rassilon character, drawn out regeneration...). Comments from the critics appear to dismiss these problems with the story. Would fans agree? I doubt it Stormcloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC). I do not know where you would find one definitive measure of viewer opinion but for the record I LOVED this episode - one of my favourites and tops for RTD.MonikaWikiWholock (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)2013October25

Continuity Section

NB I've rearranged some of the more specific points into sub-headings of this section, to try and keep things clearer. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, as a starting point, I've removed the stuff about the remote control TARDIS on the grounds that it strays into original research. But I've restored the continuity section that Sceptre removed on the basis that "this type of continuity section is the kind of stuff that gets us in trouble" isn't much of a reason to delete the whole thing. As far as I can see the section as it stands is simply listing things which are self-evidently references to other episodes (either explicitly in the script or in the form of clips). It seems to me that there are two issues here. One, avoiding original research; and two, the suitability of continuity sections in principle. Given that all a lot of the other episode articles seem to have them, it looks like consensus is that they're useful. Personally, I'm not bothered if the section stays or goes, but people are going to keep putting continuity items in unless there's a discussion and some consensus to point them to here. So, please, discuss away. Maccy69 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Doctor Who episodes include Continuity sections. Unless the Doctor Who project has a policy against them I wouldn't go deleting them but critics certainly require episode citations (they massively help with verifiability) and if external reference are available to establish notability that is even better. -- Horkana (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WHO#MOS. Continuity sections are tolerated, but are encouraged to be short as possible and to mention everything prosaically, not in a bulleted list. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes things much clearer. I'm inclined to think that rewriting the section (as has been done) is better than deleting it. Maccy69 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take note that some readers (i.e. me) REALLY appreciate the continuity sections. Big help. Just watch for spoilers. MonikaWikiWholock (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Remote Control TARDIS

Dear all,

Should we not mention that the Doctor is suddenly able to remote control his TARDIS when it is mentioned as a very difficult thing to do in Mark of the Rani (the Doctor being very impressed with the Rani for mastering this technology). I mention this without knowledge of the books and comics where this may have been explored but it has not been seen in the new series until now. There may be more of an explaination for it in part two but its very happening is surely worth mentioning (perhaps in a continuity section with a reference to Mark of the Rani?).

Regards,
Thetictocmonkey 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, he only detaches it from real-time by one second; I'm not sure that that really goes against Mark of the Rani... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, he could have upgraded his TARDIS since Mark of the Rani. It also has a number of other features now that it didn't have previously. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware he has upgraded it but this feature has not been seen on screen and is therefore worth mentioning. I also realised that it was nowhere near as advanced as the Rani but there is a clear connection. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that there has been no further contest to my suggestion I have added it to the article. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, we need to avoid these continuity sections. They may exist in other articles, but given this is the last TEnnent episode, I suspect that we will likely get it to FA as soon as possible, which these sections are not used in. Secondly, the statement is wrong. The Doctor has remotely operated the TARDIS at least once before in the New Series, namely Utopia (that to lock the TARDIS between the two time periods); the suggestion that there's a connection to non-canon media is tenacious and is strongly bordering on original research which is why these sections are generally discouraged. Now, if a secondary source notes the remote operation and the like, that can be included in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good thing or not, please everyone stop edit warring about that section. If you feel strongly about it, discuss it here first. Regards SoWhy 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this as part of a general discussion of the continuity section, which I'm about to start, below. For that reason, I'm archiving this bit. Maccy69 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please do not modify" on a discussion from the same day is ridiculous and very much anti-discussion to attempt to close down any room for disagreement in such a short time. You should at least start another section and try to change the subject before asserting this discussion closed.
Other television articles do include continuity sections, so a lot depends on whether other Doctor Who articles generally include them, but even if they do not then we should still try to help a the editor to include his good faith addition in a more appropriate way, rather than deleting. A citation needed tag would be appropriate if you feel this needs external reference.
I've no great interest in the content of the section, perhaps it is not notable but I hate to see an editor who asked for feedback first and then made a good faith effort not even getting a fair chance to correct and improve his work. Even moving the section back to the talk page rather than outright deleting it would have given him a better chance to improve or discuss it and for other editors to try and help with cleanup or find sources. -- Horkana (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to close down discussion, I just thought it would be better to include it in a general discussion of continuity. I thought we were running the risk of getting muddled between original research in particular and continuity sections in general. I don't see the problem in continuing to discuss the specific idea about remote-control TARDIS as part of a general discussion about continuity. Then, it's all in one place under a simple heading "continuity" that we can point editors to in the future. To this end, is it OK if I copy your comment to the section below? Maccy69 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've removed the archive and made this into a sub-section of the continuity discussion. I've moved your points about this as well, to just below. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Before deleting please advise the editor on how he might rephrase the section on Remote control TARDIS to avoid speculative words. Someone suggested it made an incorrect assertion, it may still have held some truth without being the whole truth (something about "Utopia" was truncated in the edit summary). Again a rephrase might be allow the editor to include the point he was trying to make, and an earlier instance of remote control TARDIS might simply add to his point. I did have a quick look to see if I could find references to help backup the point. You never know, maybe it is Chekov's gun and the remote control will be a plot point in the next episode, or maybe someone just like the idea of the Doctor closing the door like it was a car. -- Horkana (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that nobody other than that particular editor has made a connection between the Doctor remotely locking the TARDIS and the Rani having a different form of remote control in another story. Without a reliable source making this connection, it's synthesis at the very least. For this reason, the section cannot be rephrased to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There's a long discussion about continuity in Doctor Who articles here. Maccy69 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add: it's extremely unlikely that any media review is going to mention continuity points. Until someone notable writes a book on all of this, the "Fact Files" on the official site are pretty much the only place to look (the "End of Time, Part One" one is here). And it just isn't feasible to have a big section of fan speculation with "citation needed" next to nearly every point. The editor concerned did exactly the right thing by raising it here first, it's just a shame that he didn't wait a bit longer before making the edit. Still, it's good to be bold but you shouldn't be upset if you get reverted. Maccy69 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with your tone about my edit and my reaction to its unilateral deletion. Your comments are unhelpful and not in good faith. Please try and follow the guidelines above about being polite in this discussion. We are all working together to create the best article we can and insulting other editors is not conducive to this. I was not "upset" about the deletion of my edit, I simply wanted to understand why it had been done and asked the person who undid it to give full reason for it. I am, however, upset by your comments made here in bad faith. I also waited a fair ammount of time before making my edit and it then sparked further discussion and editing which I think we can agree is good and helpful.

Yours in good faith,

Thetictocmonkey —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

OK, that may have been bad phrasing on my part, I apologise. Horkana seemed to be getting upset on you behalf, suggesting that we should leave your edit in, apparently to spare your feelings. I wasn't suggesting that deleting it had made you upset, quite the opposite. I was simply suggesting that reverting someone's edit is normal procedure when it comes to original research. I was also trying to explain why it wasn't practical to leave the edit in and try and rephrase it. For the record, I do think the previous reasons given for removing it are far more debatable - but that the original research trumps all of that, and I wish it had been used as the reason from the start. I also don't think you acted in bad faith and I'm honestly at a loss to see how you deduced that from what I wrote. However, I apologise unreservedly for giving you that impression. Still, I think it's clear that the edit is not suitable for inclusion, so there isn't much more to discuss on this. If you think my reasoning is wrong, you should probably start a new thread below stating why the stuff about remote control TARDISes isn't original research. I'll let other editors debate it with you. If you want, though, I can rescue your original wording and paste it into the this discussion. That aside, that's it from me in this discussion. All the best. Maccy69 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Maccy69, I see that I misunderstood you to some extent and I apologise for that. I also accept your apology and I hope their is no more bad feeling between us. It would be great if you paste my edit into here so that it could be discussed and hopefully reworded so it can be included. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and any advice is very welcome.
Blessings and regards,
Thetictocmonkey 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It's easy to get the wrong end of the stick in a written format. No harm done, and there was never any bad feeling on my part. For reference, you can always find old edits in the history, even if they've been reverted, so I found yours here. Here it is, for discussion:

• The Doctor is shown to remotely control his TARDIS for the first time on screen. In Mark of the Rani he is impressed at the Rani's capability to do this using a Stattenheim remote control. However, the Doctor's remote control capabilities are not nearly as advanced: he is seen only to lock the TARDIS and to place it one second out of sync with time. The Doctor has a Stattenheim remote control in the spin-off media however this is of questionable canonicity.

Personally, I think you're on a hiding to nothing with this particular entry, but I'm bowing out of the discussion. I strongly suggest you read about original research (particularly the section on synthesis) and reliable sources before discussing this. You may also want to read a long discussion on a similar theme here. I think its also worth considering http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Wiki, which has different policies to Wikipedia and is more geared towards fans. Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Id actually say that its not remote control; but rather similar to what the Master did to the Doctors Tardis in 'The Keeper of Traken' putting it a second out of sync. Mainly because the Rani had full remote control of her Tardis; being able to set the cordinates and make it take off. Otherwise you can say the Dr has remote controlled his tardis previously; ie locking the controls in Utopia, clicking of the fingers in forest of the dead; having his tardis land on earth in Voyage of the Damned, or auto locking the tardis like a car in the End of Time, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.195.42 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He Man/Skeletor

the dr called master sceletor a refrance to heman and the MASTERs of the universe that should be on refrance section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-worded your title and added this to the general continuity discussion. I hope that's OK. I think it's true that there's an unambiguous reference to Skeletor in the script. The question is, is it important enough to go in the article? I'm not sure. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't. Little in-jokes or just figures of speech like that really aren't notable or important for WP article (and yes, WP is littered with them). GedUK  14:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP was littered with them in the good old days. --86.133.229.115 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. While it's a clear He-Man reference, it's an offhand line that doesn't have significance to the plot. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the master calling dr gandalf was notable 4 Last of The Time Lords thats why i said it lol or i wouldnt have hehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rassilon

Just to be clear, the Doctor did say before the Time Lord President vanished that he was Rassilon. Contrary to an earlier revision, however, there's no Glove of Rassilon – it's a prediction based on a naming pattern of many items associated with Rassilon, but it's unconfirmed. And yes, this Time Lord President being Rassilon is extremely non-trivial – even within the Time Lord timeline, he should've been long, long dead. 86.159.111.21 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't say he was Rasillon, he called him Rasillon. I could call you Rasillon, doesn't mean you are. It's just Russell fanwanking one last time. GedUK  20:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The distinction, insofar as it can be considered important, is why I recommend (and have added) language like 'identified by the Doctor as Rassilon' – indicating that it was the Doctor's claim. Nonetheless, there's little reason to dispute the Doctor's authority in identifying Rassilon. He called him Rassilon for a reason, and the most probable reason is that he was confident he was Rassilon. Elyssaen (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is Rasillon; I'm 99% sure, 99.9% even. But this is Wikipedia, not GallifreyOne or a Dr Who wikia (the name escapes me). It needs a source. I like your 'identified as' solution. GedUK  21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GED, we cannot say he is Rassilon. I think he was comparing him to Rassilon. It is possible the Time Lords resurrected Rassilon to lead them in the Time War. But all this is speculation, not fact. Thetictocmonkey 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since he is not positively identified as Rassilon in the credits ("The Narrator" for Part One, "Lord President" for Part Two, nothing more), labelling Dalton's character as Rassilon is currently not verifiable. SuperMarioMan (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Thetictocmonkey 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree - I think it is reasonable to note that the doctor called the individual "Rassilon" (in terms of verification, the episode is available for review online on BBC iPlayer). It has the potential to acquire future relevance and is worth cataloguing.

I think that the latest edit on this subject is very good. - Thetictocmonkey 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On Dr Who Condfidential; RTD calls him Rassilon. But as I don't wanna fall foul of die-hard Dr. Who editors (you know who you are!), I'll let someone else add it in if they want. steveking89 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree though. If RTD calls him Rassilon on Confidential, it's as reliable as it can be. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but on the other hand, Dalton was credited as "Lord President" – one has to wonder why... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 12:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But that would be speculation again. ;-) Regards SoWhy 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO he's clearly a Rassilon, as the Doctor and RTD call him that. Whether he's the Rassilon is debatable, but naming him as Rassilon is pretty clear cut as fine I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put him as Lord President with a link to Rassilon. Following the credits as far as is correct is what should be done I say. I removed the Narrator name as part 2 makes it pretty clear that that is not his name or title, and was used to cover is role among the Time Lords until yesterday. U-Mos (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an obiqutous link, so I removed it; it is already linked in the Continuity section. And he is credited as "The Narrator" in Part One, so I restored that as well. — Edokter • Talk • 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I never saw any reason why we should stick to cast lists where reliable sources are less ambiguous. For example, in "Journey's End", the "Chinese Woman" is called "Anna Zhou". Hence, I'd support calling him "The Narrator/Lord President Rassilon". Sceptre ^(talk) 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Without an explicit reliable source, there is no reason to assume that it may not have been intended as a metaphor, just like the reference to Weeping Angels. RTD also said the hand that picked up the Master's ring was "the Rani" - that too was not literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it were a single reference onscreen that would be reasonable. But the guy who wrote the script referred to him as Rassilon several times... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As the previous Rassilon continuity reference did not mention the significance of the name, and would seem very trivial to anyone not already familiar with the character, I have now edited this, still allowing for open interpretation, but now supplying information about who most people seem to assume Timothy Dalton's character was.
--BadWolfTV (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Selfless Master

The article currently says "but at which point the Master, in a selfless of bravery, uses the last of his lifeforce to blast the Lord President back into the Time War" however my reading of the program, which was confirmed by Russell T Davis in COnfidential was that this was an act of revenge against the people that have caused him so much pain for so long. Jasonfward (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Master's years of evil madness may have been caused by his people, but he was still evil and mad. A selfless act is entirely uncharacteristic. - Thetictocmonkey 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We also don't know that it's the last of his lifeforce. I'd be amazed if he didn't come back at some point. GedUK  21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, he always does!!! Thetictocmonkey 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the article to remove the "selfless act" reference pending the conclusion of this discussion. I left the "last of life force" in however. - Thetictocmonkey 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove that as well. We simply don't know what happens to him or the Time Lords, it just explodes and gone they are... Regards SoWhy 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Gone they are", turning into Yoda are you? :p GedUK  22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you discovered my secret identity! SoWhy 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, the Master's actions actually aren't uncharacteristic. There is a history of the Doctor and the Master teaming up to defeat a common enemy, something Rusty pointed out on Confidential. Whether it's selfless or not is another matter entirely. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He He I was the one who added in the selfless part :D --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blink Reference

Not really sure if there is a good place for this in the article, but there is a "Sally" on the "Sparrow" line bus 18 minutes into part one. A subtle reference to the episode "Blink", where the main character is "Sally Sparrow". ConnertheCat 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I just saw it, too. "Sparrow lane". Especially with the two women holding their hands like the weeping angels. But do you think "social touring for the over..." (rest I can't read) fits in this possibility?

--85.180.227.49 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (sorry, no en.wiki-account)

There is a definite Blink reference in Part 2; Rassilon makes reference to the "Weeping Angels of old". BBC iPlayer's subtitles capitalise it. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be absolutely accurate and pedantic, that's not a reference to Blink (Dalton hasn't seen the episode); if anything, it's a reference to the Weeping Angels 'as featured in'... ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Verity Lambert/ Family of Blood Reference

Sorry, what happend to the VL-Reference? Or did I rd this in an other thread? Call mer Donna, because of hangovers :-) --85.180.227.49 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My note on it was removed as being speculation. I realise there's little evidence for it, but that's because it doesn't really need any, surely? Two of the most important people in the show's history are referenced in the name of a character. It's a bit like someone in a political thriller about the Iraq invasion being called George Blair. So blindingly obvious that no-one is likely to need to confirm or deny it. --Crgn (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's blindingly obvious to dedicated Doctor Who fans, but not necessarily to general viewers of the episode or readers of this article. It seems that someone's restored the explanation for the name using the io9 reference, which I think is fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Donna's Wedding

The entry states "giving Wilf and Sylvia Noble a winning lottery ticket to give to Donna". Was it confirmed anywhere (this ep or confidential etc)that it was a winning ticket? Swampy 139.168.137.237 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember it being confirmed, but the implication was that it is. You know, the Doctor being able to travel in time and whatnot. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

RTD makes it pretty clear it was in Confidential, Thetictocmonkey 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SFX Goof

Not sure if it's worth mentioning, but I noticed a special effects error in part 2, about 29 minutes in. Dr Who Confidential showed that the two Vinvocci aliens' green skin is not make-up - their heads were green and spiked, but the rest of the skin was the normal pink tone. Presumably it is digitally added. At about 29 minutes in, when the Doctor and Wilfred are talking and the Master's transmission about the white point star starts. The action cuts to the two Vinvocci on the bridge, and you can see that their skin is pink instead of green. 86.20.198.199 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-edited filming of an episode shown on Confidential does not constitute a 'goof'. It simply indicates that some of the green was added digitally rather than with makeup. It's only a "SFX Goof" if the pink skin is unintentionally visible in the final edit of the episode for broadcast. I'm not sure that it is particularly noteworthy in an article about an episode to address specific SFX techniques used, unless the techniques used are themselves particularly noteworthy.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the final broadcast edit - at 29 minutes into The End Of Time Part 2, the alien's skin is pink instead of green. I referenced Confidential just to illustrate that it was a SFX error as opposed to a make-up error. 86.20.198.199 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, around 29:15. Not convinced that it's worth mentioning in the article, unless some notable source has commented on this 6 seconds of the episode. Has no significance to plot.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Jones

According to this source (which I'm not sure is reliable; probably ought to investigate that first), Harriet Jones was supposed to be in this episode. I honestly cannot remember seeing her (which would make sense; she's dead), but I was wondering if anyone else did. NW (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the fault of IMDB. There's no point in her returning, either; her story is definitively and satisfyingly over after dying. Same with Martha and Mickey (freelancing as alien hunters), Donna and co (married and rich), and Rose (with Handy in the parallel universe). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Time Lock (End of Time Part 2)

Re Part 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time#Part_Two

"The President, vowing to not let himself die, places Gallifrey and many other terrors in a "Time Lock". "

That is not correct... The Lord President did not place Gallifrey in a Time Lock. The whole Time War was already in a Time Lock, as established by various previous episodes of New Who.

Furthermore, why on Earth would the Lord President place Gallifrey in a Time Lock, only to then come up with a convoluted means of escaping said same Time Lock? If there were no Time Lock initially, the Time Lords would simply have escaped already, avoiding their death at the hands of the Doctor, rather than put themselves in a lock and then try & find a way out of it.

The whole point was that they (in fact the whole Time War) were already trapped within a Time Lock, and needed a way to escape it (after the Visionary said that it was the last day of the war & the Doctor would burn them all). Hence sending the drum-beat signal back to the Master as a child, & then sending the diamond through to create a more physical link.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO your explanation makes sense. Try watching tha part again? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back to an older version of that paragraph, but it needs some rewording. Anyone want to propose a draft version here? NW (Talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that version's any better really - it still states that the Lord President created the Time Lock, which is simply not correct, but it also goes back to saying that the Master sacrificed himself for the Doctor (he didn't - he did it as a last act of revenge, not a sacrifice to save the Doctor. I think there's already Talk for this, & I'm sure RTD said it was revenge).

It's late now, but I'll have a think tomorrow about re-wording the Time Lock section if no one else has done it.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done an edit now.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the editing of the section in question... I have no problem with people editing my edit for the sake of brevity, but if people want to make it shorter & more to the point, could they please at least keep it accurate, rather than reverting to incorrect earlier versions? As mentioned above, the Lord President did *not* create the Time Lock. The whole Time War was already trapped in it, as mentioned in the episode, and as mentioned in earlier episodes. The Lord President was trying to find a way to *escape* the Time Lock. It is utterly illogical that he would put Gallifrey and "other terrors" inside a Time Lock himself only to then come up with a convoluted plan to escape said same Time Lock. If there were no Time Lock to begin with, the President & other Time Lords would simply have used more normal means to escape their death at the hands of the Doctor, they would no trap themselves & then try & find a way out of their own trap. Watch the episode again, it's on iPlayer.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And is this really a flashback or a meanwhile? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO it's a "meanwhile", not a flashback. It's a timetravel show... The Time Lord Council scenes on Gallifrey are happening at the same time as the present-day Earth scenes. It's all at the same time.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But the current version of the article imply it is a flashback! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah true. I did change that on one of my earlier edits, must have forgotten to do it last time. I see you've changed it now.

btw, I think it should still mention *why* they urgently want to escape the Time Lock... as they (rightly) fear the Doctor is going to destroy them all as well as the Daleks.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Diamond shooting star

When the Lord President throws the diamond, the shooting star is shown to be simultaneously appearing. Is these two events happening at the same time? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not happen simultaneously, it was sent into the future to create the link, what good is a TIMElord if he can't do that --60.229.177.176 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In use

Please don't edit when the {{in use}} template is there!!! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you placed that template on the article when myself and two other anonymous users were editing the article? NW (Talk) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the your edits were done. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Run-ons

I feel that there are many run-ons in this article. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Brevity question

I was wondering if, and one will pardon the expression, as times goes on, the Plot section will get more detail. I understand this is an encyclopaedia and not a fan site, but considering the major elements involved (the Master, Time Lords, last Tennant episode for a few), it would seem to benefit from more detail. Certainly the whole Time Lock thing would benefit from expansion. In watching the article evolve (and my apologies, as since I started typing this it seems the ending of Part 2 has gotten a bit more added), it seems some things have been unduly compressed, such as the restoration of the Master.

Again, I do understand the nature of this site, and that you folk are very kind in giving your time and effort to work on this. I, and many others who never say it, do owe a lot to you all. Hopefully this request will be accepted and acted upon.

Grazie mille LMB02 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And since I posted this, the expansion on the companions is again gone... I saw the revision comment that removed them said they should be in the Continuity section, but I thought I read earlier on this discussion page that Continuity sections were to be brief, if used at all. LMB02 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Plot section is still way way too long - have people read Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary at all? Etrigan (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon

According to the last Doctor Who Confidential of Season 4 (Allons-Y) it is Rassilon. The Lord President/Narrator is referred to as Rassilon by Russell T. Davies in multiple instances. --Xero (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See #Rassilon above. I have already made the change to the infobox with this source. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course The Lord President is Rassilon. This is a work of fiction it does not require a secondary source and if some editors think it does then confidential is the secondary source as that programme is not a work of fiction.

Is it the original "Rassilon" back from the dead, or just another Time Lord with the same name? Stormcloud (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We do not know. We can therefore only state that he has the same name. Thetictocmonkey 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

International broadcast dates in lead

At the risk of sounding like a Little Englander, are the US, Canada or anywhere else's broadcast dates really relevant to the lead? When it was first shown in the UK seems relevant as it was the world premiere, but adding in every other country it gets shown in just seems like clogging up the lead with excess detail to me. Surely this sort of information would be better suited to the dedicated broadcast section later in the article? Otherwise you get to the point of asking why are some countries' showings mentioned in the lead and not others? "Because it's the first time such showings have been soon after the UK showings", some will say. Fine, but this is detail that can be included and expanded and explained in said broadcast section. Angmering (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with this. I think the BBC broadcast date is relevant in the lead, and other dates should be lower in the article. Teekno (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. As nobody else commented, I have gone ahead and made the change for now. Angmering (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Presence of UNIT

In Part Two, a number of the Master's copies are shown to be personnel at UNIT Headquarters, Geneva - this is explicitly stated in the character dialogue. Therefore, should The End of Time be considered a minor appearance by UNIT, and added to the appropriate template to be included at the base of the article? SuperMarioMan (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, UNIT did you appear, did they? The Master appeared at the UNIT HQ but no one of UNIT itself was shown. I don't think that's a appearance. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor's Mother

Hi everyone, I'm not too wiki-savvy so I don't know how to do footnotes. But the source for the bit about the woman in white being the Doctor's mother is from the End of Time Part 2 commentary (01/01/2010) and is said by Julie Gardner. --207.81.124.241 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

She says that's who she thinks it is, but that's quite far from being a confirmation. Davies, on the same commentary, does not confirm or deny it. Angmering (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source of this commentary you mention? I assume it cannot be a DVD commentary since the episodes has only be broadcast on television and I'm not clear what you mean. Was it from Doctor Who confidential? Last I checked someone had removed the mention of Julie Gardner saying it was the Doctor's mother. You might want to restore it and rephrase it to better establish the credibilty of the source and where others can find this information and verify it for themselves, something like "Executive producer Julie Gardner" said in her commentary on (the DVD/the radio/Doctor Who Confidential/Whatever it was). Thanks. -- Horkana (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember any comment about the woman in any of the two confidentials that accompany the episode, so could you elaborate, to which commentary you refer to and maybe even the approx. time when it's said? Regards SoWhy 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to this in Doctor Who Confidential. Can someone please locate the source of the comment? 69.127.156.131 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The comment comes from the commentary that was broadcast on BBC7 and made available to UK users on the BBC's Doctor Who website, here. Since I'm not in the UK, I can't check to find out the time in the commentary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one who didn't think she was the Doctor's mother but rather assumed she was a future Donna. I got this feeling based on the scene where Wilf asks who she was at Donna's wedding, the Doctor doesn't answer him and instead we get a shot of Donna in front of the church. Granted that doesn't mean much, but seeing as Donna is a Time Lord after a fashion and her ultimate fate is (annoyingly) unresolved, it makes sense to me. Of course this woman could be any one of a number of Time Ladies we've met before: Romana, Flavia (yeah, Flavia! I said it) or Time Lady by marriage Leela! Ttenchantr (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Katherine Tate was in this episode, it would have been very easy to age her and utilize her for "The Woman" if that was the intent. There is nothing about the woman's role that reminds me even vaguely of Donna... same goes for an older Rose/Billy Piper. Unlikely. Cearly the viewer was suuposed to "get" but "not get" this--- I also doubt this is Leela or Romana... RTD would have gotten Lalla Ward or Loiuse Jameson back if they were meant to be "original" Who characters. This is someone "new"- I have no doubt. 24.46.159.137 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we stop the general chit-chat about the episode, please? This is a space for discussing the Wikipedia article only. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuity section

I just checked all the featured articles on episodes for Doctor Who, at Category:FA-Class Doctor Who articles. None of them have such a Continuity subsection, and certainly none of them have info on continuity that is uncited. I have trimmed out the uncited portions from this article, but really the whole subsection should just be deleted, or perhaps modeled after the featured article, Doomsday (Doctor Who). Cirt (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Continuity" is a mistitle, and it admittedly needs some major reworking. But that's OK. The material that you want deleted is an important part of the episode's plot (took up about a third of the run-time, if I remember rightly) and contains elements significant to the whole continuity of post-2005 "New Who". It is all based on the episode, and on past episodes; if this isn't made clear by the citations, I'll try to work on it later tonight if I get time, or tomorrow otherwise. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is wholly inappropriate for this page, it is not a subsection standard on featured articles for this topic. If it is essential to the plot, it is not already in the Plot subsection for some reason. It should be removed, as wholly uncited material. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that at all. The section covers a vital part of the plot. If you think it should be moved into the "Plot" section, go ahead. Or I'll deal with it later, like I said I would. What's the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion over edit-conflicts

Why did this need a new section? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a dup post to user's same exact post in below subsection. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my mistake. Loads of edit-conflicts. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We could rewrite it and put it in the plot as such:

After he tells Wilf he is going to "get [his] reward" before his regeneration, the episode shows a series of vignettes that show him encounter his previous companions and their families: saving Martha and Mickey from a Sontaran; saving Sarah Jane's son Luke from being run down by a car; setting up Captain Jack with Alonso Frame from the 2007 special "Voyage of the Damned"; attending a book signing of Verity Newman's A Journal of Impossible Things, recounting a human Doctor's dreams of time travel and his relationship to Verity's grandmother in "Human Nature" and "The Family of Blood"; giving Donna a winning lottery ticket [bought using money borrowed from Donna's deceased Dad] as a wedding present; and finally, visiting Rose on 1 January 2005 and telling her she is "going to have a great year".

And then dovetail back into the regeneration. It needs rewriting for prose, but it at least contains OR (the only OR being the assumption that the lottery ticket is a winner, and it's so obvious it is that we might get away with saying it is), and we cut down the size of these horrible continuity sections. We could also move Donna's recollections to the plot and just say "she starts to remember events from her travels with the Doctor during the fourth series", and move the Rassilon reappearance/fanwankery to the writing section. All we'll have left is a few offhand lines which we can similarly integrate or else remove if they're not relevant to the episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the references to Human Nature, the Sycorax etc. in the bar, "My Angel Put the Devil in Me" etc. should all be mentioned; this is all part of RTD's climax, and I think it's all relevant. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought it was them using everything they've got in the computer to populate the bar, like they intended for the Shadow Proclamation for "The Stolen Earth". Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree (for once) with Cirt's comment below, but what I meant was that this was very much a "Carnival of the Animals" in effect, with all the past companions, past monsters etc., and their presence all in one episode is notable IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The companions have a purpose—one which we can cite—in the episode. However, the monsters in the bar do not. It's simple crowd multiplication and we shouldn't take it as anything more significant without a source. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should stress their significance; however, their presence en masse is clearly unusual and sourced, and readers reading (our basic audience) may well wish to know which creatures were present. I don't suggest anything more than is currently included in the article... is there anything wrong with it? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not common sense at all; I mean, in my opinion, it's another shout-out to Star Wars in an episode which had plenty. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: We should rely on secondary sources to determine what is or is not relevant, not the opinions of individual Wikipedians. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A better way to consider this is that if we're going to have the last moments of the Doctor with former companions as plot, they should be described in a plot-only manner (and with just a bit more about Verity since she's not immediately recognizable). The elements about which monsters were at the bar, etc. are "continuity", they aren't necessary to the plot (though by calling the bar an "extraterrestial bar" , that implies aliens are there). Now the information that's moved to continuity is the type that, judging from Stolen Earth and other featured DW episodes, will be able to be worked into a production section (like a statement from RTD saying "Hey, I wanted to have this Star Wars Cantana-like scene") so it will be fine. As long as we are not engaging in speculation in this (eg, if RTD didn't say Tom was Martha's rebound, we'd not be able to include that fact), then there's no problems with developing this section now to relocate things in the future. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OR and Primary sources

Tagged with WP:OR and Concerns about dependency on primary sources, due to issue raised in above subsection about Continuity section. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did this need a new section? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of the tags added to the top of the article. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it needed a whole new section, given that it is entirely dependent on, caused by and related to the section above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You disagree that I don't see why it needed a whole new section? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate to have a section to explain the necessity of the tags. The above section is for discussion of why the material should not be there at all, in the first place. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the winning ticket = more unsourced OR cruft

[1] = even more unsourced WP:OR cruft added to the Continuity section. Unbelievable. Completely inappropriate. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does this need its own section separate to the one two above? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That was added in the last five minutes. Sorry we're not so quick off the mark. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not needed. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Without the sarcasm: That was added in the last five minutes. It's been removed now. I make no apologies whatsoever for the fact that I wasn't quick enough off the mark to satisfy you. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a matter of satisfying one editor. Rather, that the inclusion of the subsection at all, encourages violation of site policy. Especially when that section already contains uncited OR cruft. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a chill-pill the two of you. Cool down for minute. You're worse than an old married couple.  Cargoking  talk  20:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTOR for works of fiction. It is the reason plot summaries can appear within minutes of a work of fiction appearing on TV, Film, or a book before a secondary source that could be days/weeks later. OR is the last resort of the scoundrel editor to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.163.161 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I'm fairly certain that in either the audio commentary or Doctor Who Confidential, Julie Gardner says something like "And you just know that's a winning ticket, don't you?" I'll try to find the exact source and quotation and come back once I've got it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  See my note two sections above where I agree it wouldn't be OR. I mean, the Doctor's a bloody time traveller! Sceptre ^(talk) 06:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

'Ginger' controversy

Given this BBC Complaint I was wondering if this could be added to the page for The End of Time section.

This article on the BBC Website answers complaints people had about the Ginger comment at the end of the second episode by Matt Smith.

If not, then where?

--Snowboy83 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already done it. Check the bottom of the continuity section. U-Mos (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In the main body of the text, user MarnetteD is insisting that the line reading shows the Doctor is "disappointed" that he is not ginger. This is not the case. The line is read as him being relieved. (Check video clip and see.) This is exactly how the tenth incarnation reacted when his regeneration happened. "Please tell me I'm not ginger!" with shock/fear. This is played for humourous effect.

This is the reason why the BBC was accused of having an anti-ginger bias, and why they had to defend the line.

Actually you need to go back and watch the episodes. The tenth doctor stated that he always wanted to be ginger and the 11th is continuing this thought. MarnetteD | Talk 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even the link to the BBC page that Snowboy provided above, if you would read it, states that the Doctor is "disappointed he's still not ginger". This is quite clear in both stories and it is the misreading of it by people like you that has lead to the ridiculous complaints. MarnetteD | Talk 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that (MarnetteD) is right, yeah. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He is. Doctor: "Am I ginger or not?" Rose: "No, you're just sorta brown" Doctor: "Aw, I wanted to be ginger... I've never been ginger!" — Edokter • Talk • 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This page no longer exists. Someone more familiar with Wiki procedures should fix the citation. 63.229.1.130 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New edition of The Writer's Tale -- a required source?

Any editors wishing to further the info on this episode's casting/characters may wish to get their hands on The Writer's Tale - The Final Chapter. Judging by this media blog, it may have something more definite on the characters played by Claire Bloom and Timothy Dalton. --88.110.89.97 (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that they were deliberately left open/mysterious, I very much doubt that the book will make any revelations... thanks for advising me of it, though, I've got some book-tokens to use up ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If the media blog is accurate, then (once the book is published and its contents can be verified) it would be appropriate to say that Davies identified the characters as so-and-so in emails published in The Writer's Tale. Even though the characters' identity may be ambiguous in the episode as aired, the opinion of the episode's writer is highly relevant information. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes from the script

BBC Books have uploaded Davies' special scripts to the official Writer's Tale website (apart from Planet of the Dead, as of writing). Obviously, having exams, I can't pour over the book like I did when I first got it, but I want to make a few clarifications, or not, regarding the script:

• The Woman's identity is deliberately kept vague, and the Doctor staring at Donna isn't indicative of anything.
• Rassilon is referred solely as the Narrator in the script for part 1, and the Lord President for part 2.
• The implication that the lottery ticket is a winner is heavily implied, but not outright said (classic Davies...) in the script too.
• The bar is on a generic planet, with no Star Wars pointers in the script.

Yay. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They're now all available for download here (including Planet of the Dead)! ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes from the book

I just got the book through the post today (bloody Waterstone's, eh? Took 'em a week and a half to send it!). I can confirm that:

• Claire Bloom's character is the Doctor's mother. Russell only told Julie, Tracie, David, and Euros, and was more than content to let the fans think it's Romana.

• Timothy Dalton's character is Rassilon. As in, the character who appeared in The Five Doctors Rassilon.

I've rushed through to that part as I need to go out very soon (i.e. two minutes), but I'll continue this later on. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will you? -- User:JimboWales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.52.0 (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Weeping Angels

Here in our community, we of course discussed the "shamed" Time Lords and decided on 1st viewing that the one was the Doctor's mother. However, it was also discussed that the Weeping Angles could be these very Time Lords, somehow banished back to the beginning of the universe. Everyone thought their final poses of shame and distress clearly indicated this...and the Doctor had said several times that no one knew of the origin of the Angels. Food for thought...I have no citations and I'm not going hunting for any, and I'm not editing a thing either. Just food for thought...see the very end again and then decide for yourselves.75.21.98.232 (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Score

Shouldn't we have something about the Murray Gold score, especially the Vale Decem piece during the regeneration ? Hektor (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cast in the infobox

This has nothing to do with the fan debate about whether Dalton's character is Rassilon. The fact of the matter is that, through long standing consensus and per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style, the cast list in the infobox is listed "in a style similar to the credits". Dalton's character is listed as "The Narrator" in the first episode and as the "Lord President" in the second. Whether Medeis is editing in good faith or is edit warring the fact remains that until the current consensus is overturned the name Rassilon should not be added to the infobox. FYI when the series was first entered on IMDb Rassilon's name was not there, it has been added by a fan in the intervening time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Dalton is Rassilon is, for our purposes, at best assumption and at worst another assumption. Our reliable source for this is the producers of the programme, and unless and until they make the equation, it is not up to us to do so on their behalf. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help that there's a number of reviews of the episode from good and semi-reliable sources that make that confusion. But when you trace where they got "Rassalon" from, it's clearly one bad bit of speculation from somewhere. It needs to be kept as the credits list (Narrator/LP) --MASEM (t) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not privy to this fan debate. What matters is the sources. That the BBC credits him as Lord President is not proof that he is not Rassilon. Where is the policy saying IMDB is not a reliable source? If the matter is subject of controversy then it is absolutely not our place to take sides but to note the controversy.μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is the same as an open wiki that anyone can edit. Therefore, it fails reliability as a self-published source. --MASEM (t) 02:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter. I am sure no one here will revert to the bad faith strategem of editing IMDB to suit his fandom POV. Russell T Davies himself refers to him as Rassilon in the Confidential episode. So I have added the matter to the text and referenced who says what. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent entry shows that you aren't yet understanding that this is not a fan forum it is an encyclopedia. You Tube links are to be avoided as they have copyright problems. You are still trying to insert IMDb as a source when it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that it cannot be used as such. What part of it is an open wiki do you not understand? It wouldn't matter if anyone who has commented on this page edited there or not it still cannot be used a source. Nor can it be quoted as somehow an authority on anything. RTD's thoughts on the character are of note so a revised version of your edit might fit into the continuity section but not under the header "Timothy Dalton" as he has nothing to do with RTD's intentions. I would suggest that you start working with the other people who have commented on this page to figure something out. MarnetteD | Talk 12:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, as far as RTD is concerned, Dalton's character is Rassilon. He's stated this on many occasions, including DWC and The Writer's Tale. Unlike Bloom's character, where he said "well, personally, I think she's the Doctor's mother, but let the fans go crazy". He's unambiguously Rassilon from Rusty's POV... and as he's the writer and executive producer of the episode, his opinion holds a lot of sway. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is a matter of controversy, the proper wikipedia policy ios not tro take a side, but to report both sides and to attribute statements where they belong. It is a verifiable fact that the BBC lists Dalton in the credits as Lord High President. It is also verifiable that Russell T Davies, who wrote the episode, calls him Rassilon on a notable documentary describing the episode.

As for citing IMDB, the citation is not for the statement that as a matter of uncontroversial fact, Dalton is Rassilon, but simply for the fact that IMDB is one of the websites that do refer to Dalton as Rassilon. The analogy would be can we cite Orson Scott Card as proof that homosexuality is wrong? No. But we can cite Card's own site as proof that he himself holds this belief. Absolutely. This is the essence of NPOV. IMDB is notable and the listing does exist.

Editors who feel that it their place to prevent any reference to this controversy because they feel that one of the POV's in the controversy is "wrong" need to step back and realize that stating there is a verifiable controversy is perfectly encyclopedic and it is not our place as editors to make sure that a verifiable POV is not mentioned. We do not judge what is right or wrong. We report things that are notable and verifiable. The IMDB listing and RTD's statements are notable and verifiable.

Also, I remind editors to assume good faith. It is not civil behavior to denigrate people's edits as "fandom", and a repetition of that behavior will be reported as incivility.

I am restoring the mention of the Dalton/Rassilon issue in the text. It is notable, verifiable, and stated in an NPOV manner. Feel free to edit the wording, but removing the reference entirely will be treated as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of OSCard's website to support his view on homosexually (something we can easily presume was authored by Card himself) is nowhere comparable to saying that IMDB can be used to support Dalton's role. We have no idea where the information on Dalton came from on IMDB, and because it is effectively anonymous source that has no editorial oversight, it could be completely false. (The correct comparison is that RTD in commentary has suggested the character is Dalton).

The point is for consistency is that the credits which are what show in the infobox strictly are what is reported from the primary source - the episode itself. I think it's perfectly fine in the body of the article to mention that RTD has stated that Dalton's character was Rassilon, and I believe, if one searches enough, controversy over that statement, but because the BBC did not list it, it therefore is not appropriate in the infobox. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant edit to the text (which MarnetteD reverted) not the infobox, says that IMDB is one of the sites that lists Dalton as Rassilon, which is verifiable. The edit to which I am refering does not say that Dalton is Rassilon. I am restoring that part of the text, and hope I have made clear why it is an NPOV discussion of the issue in exact accord with Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I invite editors to help better word this section if they see problems with it. Outright deletion will be viewed as edit warring.μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, IMDB is not a verifiable source since anyone can edit that information and there's no oversight (it is just like WP in that regards, and even we warn readers that because of our open editing policy, we cannot be a verifiable source). The right verifiable source is RTD's commentary (which I see is included already). RTD is reliable and the most primary source for his own work, so we don't need any other source to confirm it. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I see what you're getting at. You're trying to add a new section to support this. However, we already have that information; check under continuity, or follow where inline ref 12 is pointing to. More importantly, Ref 12 is the Confidential where RTD states this, so there's zero need to use any other source or, without any other controversy on the issue, need to expand on this point further. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! My bad. I would give the matter its own subsection though. Comments?μηδείς (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, its right now an interesting tidbit. If there was a larger amount of information about Dalton's casting (not necessary about Rassilon, just his involvement) it could be expanded there, but it really needs not much more than that, based on a casual search to see very little additional commentary about that revelation. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Masem for pointing out that the info has been in the article all along. I missed that entirely. To answer the new question no it does not need its own subsection. As you point out there is not enough WP:RS info to expand beyond what we already have. MarnetteD | Talk 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant its own subsection under the continuity head. Given that both MarnetteD and I missed it, it would seem reasonable enough to give it its own place at the end.μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the entire section Continuity is rather long and unwieldy, and I would suggest breaking it up into two sections, one for the Master, Rassilon, and the other Time Lords, and one for other characters and subjects.μηδείς (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not miss it because it was hard to find - I missed it because I did not look for it. It was easy to find once I ran through the section. Thus, no the continuity section does not need subdividing. There are many of these continuity sections that are as long and longer that this one and they do not need splitting up either. Once again you seem to miss the point that there is a Manual of Style that we are adhering to. You might want to AGF that this MoS was put together by ongoing consensus over a number of years. It works well for articles relating to Dr Who articles and I can see no need to reinvent the wheel at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what policy in the MOS or elsewhere holds that a large Continuity section can't acquire logical subheads. Indeed, since readers' ease in finding material is one priority editors are supposed to keep in mind I see no possible harm. Does the current order have some virtue I am failing to see? I don't expect you to do this for me however, so I will simply be bold if I have the time to invest in arranging the section according to some logic other than the chance order in which people have historically added edits to that section.μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"and visits several of his past companions"

It's not stated in the episode itself, but in the two part "The Death of the Doctor" Sarah Jane Adventures episode, The Eleventh Doctor (Matt Smith) tells Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) and Jo Grant/Jones (Katy Manning) that he looked over "every single one," i.e. every companion he ever had - and it would have been at this point he did so.

Anyone feel like editing? :) 85.210.78.84 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore me, I didn't see it until it was heavily buried at the bottom of the very large continuity block... 85.210.78.84 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Video clip of part of the filming for this episode

Just making sure people were aware of this video clip. I stumbled across it while looking through the December 2010 Media of the Day archives over on Commons. Doesn't show much, but it's not often we get video we can use in these articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"this is a WP:EGG violation"

I'm puzzled. What article would you expect under the phrase "she first meets him", except for a description of their first meeting? -91.10.60.252 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That applies if you are writing the article from an "in universe" perspective. Wikipedia plot sections are to be written from an "out of universe" frame of reference. Having said that if you had read the whole section you would have seen that there is already a link to the Rose article with another EGG violation in the very next sentence. I suggest we compromise by leaving in the one that is already there. MarnetteD | Talk 22:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to "compromise" quite yet, I was just puzzled. I don't see the difference between "in universe" and "out of universe" here however; should plot sections only link to plot sections?

About the second link: The pipe text is about the whole season, so that's where it should link. I would leave out the link I added simply because the text is blue enough already. --91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It means that you have to be aware of the ongoing storyline to understaand what is being referred to which only some of the readers will. Those who haven't watched the show will click on the link and be taken to articles where the read have to sift through copious info and not necessarily find any connection to the phrases that you have linked to. They are highly improper as they stand but they are obviously important to you. Don't be surprised if someone else comes along and removes them especially in light of the last bulletted point here WP:INUNIVERSE MarnetteD | Talk 22:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think they are important to me? I think they are useful, because they would be useful to me, that's the extent of my thoughts about this. Do what you think is best, I'm done. -91.10.60.252 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they aren't useful. What does the article Doctor Who (series 1) have to do with Rose "having a great year". Absolutely nothing - unless of course you are a fan of the show and think that coming close to death all the time is having a great year :-) Can't get much more in universe than that. MarnetteD | Talk 23:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that the ever resourceful DonQuixote has tried another compromise. While, I like it better than the previous version it brings up the question - Why have a link only to the first season? Presumably her good year extended into season 2 - well at least until the Dr fades from view on the shores of Bad Wolf Bay :-) In some ways her affection for the Dr went up after the regeneration and the 2nd season might be more important that the first to Rose's good year. Well you can see this is the slippery slope where everything gets subjective and my interpretation of the storyline may differ from everyone elses. Better to avoid the whole thing IMO but I wont insist on any alterations. MarnetteD | Talk 23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If anything, this should probably go into continuity rather than plot. DonQuixote (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. If no one else responds in a day or so why don't you do the honors. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Italics

Why is the name of this episode presented in italics without quotation marks, while the names of other episodes in this series are presented in normal face with quotation marks?Ordinary Person (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this is a two-parter with one title. DonQuixote (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus below. (Closed as an involved editor, due to a huge requested move backlog, and there is clearly consensus here. Feel free to revert if you disagree.)(non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

• The End of Time → The End of Time (Doctor Who)
• The End of Time (disambiguation) → End of Time

– No primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support The number of other "The End of Time" uses is sufficient that this ep can't be the primary topic. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom, if anything the scientific or religious uses are much more likely -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support as above. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A Dr regeneration story will always be the most important use of a title! MarnetteD|Talk 05:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just kidding - Support per the nom and apologies if anyone is offended by my touch of fandom humour. MarnetteD|Talk 05:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @MarnetteD: Great, thanks for muddying the waters. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rassilon in Infobox

There is no clear reason why Rassilon is one of the few characters not linked in the Infobox. The character is clearly Rassilon as it is not only stated in script but also confirmed by the production team. I do not see WP:EGG applying, as it says that piped links should be "as intuitive as possible" - here the "Lord President" credit is only being short for the "Lord President Rassilon" - so it is intuitive as possible - much like Martha Smith-Jones. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several discussions above that you should familiarize yourself with. Next your "intuitive" statement only works if the reader is a long time watcher of the show and that violates WP:INUNIVERSE. A reader who has not watched the show will have no idea whatsoever why the link goes to that article. BTW the Doctor and Borusa have been Lord President since Eassilon held the title - that doesn't mean that they be linked in the infobox. MarnetteD|Talk 23:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly you are in violation of WP:3RR with three reverts on this article in just over 4 hours [2][3][4] - I'm not reporting it this time as I don't think that it would be constructive to resolve this - but a friendly reminder to check yourself. You raised 3 different policies in your revert commits: WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:EGG and WP:INUNIVERSE - none of which apply. I would also suggest you re-read the discussions above as I don't think they say what you think they say (I'm not going to pick apart points from 7 years ago when I can't see any points that actually apply here). The "intuitive" statement was made only in regards to the WP:EGG MoS point you raised - my arguement that the piped link is "intuitive as possible" according to WP:EGG definition holds in spite of whether it is WP:INUNIVERSE or not. An WP:INUNIVERSE reference does not counteract the same fact made by WP:OUTUNIVERSE sources, it supports it. And of course the Doctor and Borusa should not be linked in the Infobox from Lord President - that seems to be a strawman argument designed to confuse the point. Dresken (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:EW and note that it takes four reverts not three and also it takes two for an edit war to occur. All three policies noted in the summaries apply in this situation. I took part in the discussions above so I know what they say. You have provided zero evidence that any reader who is not familiar with the series could possibly "intuit" why the link in the infobox would go to that article. It is properly covered later in the plot section where it belongs and where it isn't a WP:EGG. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay I have tried a new approach to this to try and work within policy. I know you may not like it but I do think it is more informative. Dresken, I know that you are a good editor with the best interests of the project at heart. My apologies for any offense in my posts. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for that mistake with 3RR (it has been a while since I've looked at it. I actually fell victim to the same point I was trying to make at the same time - that sometimes policies don't actually say what we think they do from the shortlinks) - I've struck out my comment as to indicate that I acknowledge it is simply non-factual. Thank you for seeing through that though to the underlying point - I'm absolutely fine with the tooltip concept - I mean I think either way is totally adequate to convey the necessary information - but the tooltip does give extra context as a bonus. Good work for coming up with a great compromise. I'm also sorry if I offended. I think it is also pertinent to thank @86.171.65.124: for their original improvement that has prompted this version. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am glad that we could work things out Dresken. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers and keep enjoying new (and old) episodes of our travels with the Dr :-) MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The End of Time (Doctor Who). 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/20081221202542/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/production/081029_news_04 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/news/production/081029_news_04
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924213247/http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S0_09?playlist=%2Fdoctorwho%2Fplaylists%2Fs0_09%2Faudio%2Fs0_09_aud_02.xml&audio=1&date=&summary=With%20Julie%20Gardner%20and%20Russell%20T%20Davies&promo=%2Fdoctorwho%2Fmedialibrary%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Frtd%2Fjg_03.jpg&info=&info2=&info3=&tag_file_id=s0_09_aud_02 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/S0_09?playlist=%2Fdoctorwho%2Fplaylists%2Fs0_09%2Faudio%2Fs0_09_aud_02.xml&audio=1&date=&summary=With%20Julie%20Gardner%20and%20Russell%20T%20Davies&promo=%2Fdoctorwho%2Fmedialibrary%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Frtd%2Fjg_03.jpg&info=&info2=&info3=&tag_file_id=s0_09_aud_02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090417105037/http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2009/04/look-at-my-face-is-my-face-bovvered-by-a-ticket-.html to http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2009/04/look-at-my-face-is-my-face-bovvered-by-a-ticket-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The End of Time—Bonus Edition

The BBC is about to show The End of Time—Bonus Edition which has both parts put together. What is the Bonus of the Bonus Edition? WordwizardW (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Serial or single episode?

Considering that this was broadcast in two parts, should it be counted as a serial, as opposed to a single episode? 86.7.148.216 (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The current consensus is that it's a two-part episode. See The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). DonQuixote (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to bother you, but I still don't quite understand. If you don't mind, would you mind explaining the difference? 86.7.148.216 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Old Doctor Who is a serialised format, much like Star Trek Picard, Hawkeye, The Umbrella Academy, etc. New Doctor Who is an episodic format, much like Star Trek TOS, The Flash, Red Dwarf, etc. Episodic television can have two-part episodes. DonQuixote (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In that case, what makes "Mission to the Unknown" an episode rather than a serial? Aquanafrahudy (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's literally a single episode. It was when every episode had their own titles (part 1, episode 1, etc didn't happen until season 4). DonQuixote (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have never agreed with The End of Time and Spyfall being not considered the same as two-part stories from the "old" series and seems merely to be a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, attempting to draw an arbitrary distinction between classics and new. Series 22 is, structurally, no different to revived Series 9 so to say NuWho is episodic is a generalisation. There's also many two-part stories from the classic series, such as Black Orchid, which are described as a "serial", terminology that only exists to be arbitrary for the sake of it, it would seem. Spa-Franks (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)