Talk:Turn Left

Three parter?

The articles for The Stolen Earth and Journey's End show the episodes as a two parter (202a and 202b), as this episode continues into The Stolen Earth shouldn't Turn Left be 201a and the following episodes 201b and 201c? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the episode end with "To Be Continued"? (I haven't seen it yet). Also, don't the numbers refer to the production codes as listed here? --SoWhy ^Talk 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't remember if it did say TBC, however the end of episode would most definately fall into the category 'Cliffhanger' and watching the following episode without seeing this one would not be wise. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not end with "To Be Continued", so unlike Utopia to LotTL, it is NOT a three-parter. It is a 2 parter like Bad Wolf - PotW and AoG-Doomsday. 82.12.88.229 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not viewer discretion, pending confirmation of either in DWC. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really the first of three parts as it's self-contained and after all, Rose doesn't go into the TARDIS at the end of the story (so I don't think she's a current companion as the main DW page here says). However the ending with the cloister bell tells me the episode could not conveniently be repositioned, so that mitigates its being part of the three-parter. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand how it could be concidered self contained, the fact the stars are 'going out', the fact Rose says to Donna that they need both the Doctor and Donna to be alive to stop it happening, the fact that the episode ends with a whopping great cliff-hanger; all these contribute to the fact that this episode has not been concluded. You can't watch this episode and be happy you've seen a complete story from start to finish. "It's the end of the universe" says the Doctor... oh well, that's that then, don't need to watch next week... I don't think so! :D ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that this episode cannot be self contained. With the cliffhanger, I'm inclined to consider it is a three parter. But if there is a very clear theme binding the finale two episodes not seen in this episode, then two-parter is more valid. Given that RTD himself does not know or want to decide, I rather it just say that whether it is consider a three or two parter is debated on, rather than it be decided by "straw vote" - which is ludicrous. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, you'd have to find verifiable sources that backup the assertion that the structure of the last three episodes is up for debate elsewhere other than Wikipedia. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The RTD quote about his own uncertainty and leaving it up to viewers to decide, is not enough to assume that it is left up to debate? Toomanysidesofme (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it'd have to be just that, 'In answer to this, RTD said this' etc. We can't say it actually has been debated on, or give any formal result, because there are no veriable sources (are there?). ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

'Just like the last time'

As much the holocaust suggestion is much more reasonable, Cribbins was in Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 AD, which involved having human (robotized) slaves working for them. In concentration camps, maybe? :o 80.176.145.76 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, could very well be (as a history student, WW2 jumped to my mind first...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cribbins character never witness the spin-off film's plot. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Only on-screen, he didn't. Didn't the actual witnesses have mouths? :p 80.176.145.76 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But he wasn't alive in 2150 - it doesn't sound so plausible now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Touche. He could've hitched a ride on the tardis..? (arguement falling down around me :p) 80.176.145.76 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Only collapsing slightly. heh. It's a good theory, but not quite as plausible as the holocaust one :P...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

*cries* (IPs need minor edit btuttons)80.176.145.76 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's to stop vandalism, why not create an account?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a doubt they were hinting at a WW2 style genocidel scenario. I can't see any other reason why he'd say "It's happening again". ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hint at a "Final Solution". The attempt to link this to the Daleks film involving Bernard Cribbins as a London policeman is fanciful. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The film is not canon and this theory is not supported by the episode - to add this to the article would be original research and would be removed on that basis. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that it's original research, but please don't use the term "not canon" on Wikipedia. That's a fan concept and, equally, not a yardstick we should be using in an encyclopedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally, there is some amusement on Wikipedia about fan-related material, and how far certain fans go in discussing minor points... you should be aware that a certain Doctor Who fan site mentioned this particular discussion with much the same amusement :-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any amusement can be gained from a discussion about a rather poignant moment in this episode. I'm assuming (hoping) that's not what you meant. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also saw the said mention, it was not how it was meant. The amusement was towards that there was even an argument over the issue. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I couldn't give a chunky rat's ass what some plodding Whoover thinks. As Donna's grandpop was in WW2, it seems pretty obvious. but until something emerges, we can't note it, any more than we can speculate that he's somehow outside the timestream, or been privy to the Children of Men universe of 'fugee camps. Mebbe leave it to the crufty angels at the various Who sites to fist-fight over in between boundings to the refrigerator - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..someone's in a bad mood :-) CultureDrone (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps. Being a bit of a fan myself of a number of different things, I find myself particularly embarrassed by the zealotry of others, especially about something that matters not a whit in the real world. At least Star Trek gave us cell phones. I have no patience for zealotry. I will try to be more diplomatic about my loathing for it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, you gotta admit that was a sad line. Or i thought so...Anime No Kyouran 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anime No Kyouran (talk • contribs)

Zealotry? Sorry, it was only an idea. Whatever happened to wikipedia:yav? :( 80.176.145.76 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad Wolf

This statement is currently included in the continuity section.

This episode marks the return of the term "Bad Wolf" which was used throughout the first series in 2005, although while Rose Tyler 'was' Bad Wolf in the first series, in this episode, The Doctor says that the term signifies the end of the universe.

As far as I understood it, the phrase 'Bad Wolf' simply was an afirmation to the Doctor that the information about the end of the universe was genuine. The Doctor new Rose had given it because no one else other than Rose would've used that term. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought too...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who knows the implications of travel between Pete's World and his world. If Rose has reappeared, it is the end of the universe. "Bad Wolf" is Rose's manner of identifying herself to Doctor Who without telling anybody else here name. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that with so much uncertainty about the word "Bad Wolf" that a simple account of was said in the ending was enough. Rest is speculation at this point, and unneeded in this article. Ending it with, however it is unknown how exactly this ties into Bad Wolf from series one. I think it's with multiple layers as with most of the dialogue in this show. In The Shakespeare Code, a Carrionite is quoted in saying that even though she could not find the doctor's name, there is another that holds great power, and that was the name Rose. Lilith: And as for you, Sir Doctor- fascinating. There is no name. Why would a man hide his title in such despair? Oh, but look, There's still one word with the power of the days-The Doctor: The naming won't work on me.''Lilith: But your heart grows cold, the north wind blows, and carries down the distant.... Rose?Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Monster files - bad wolf

This is fairly trivial, but if you watch the monster file about the trickster's brigade, at 2:55 on the game board, to the top right of the tile stating "choose wisely" there is a tile with "bad wolf" on it. There doesn't seem to be any relevance but it seems interesting nonetheless. Eagyle (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 20:48 Standard GMT 21/06/08

I'm afraid I can't follow you. Where does it say so? What is this "monster file"? --SoWhy ^Talk 09:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Monster File is a video on the official website with Captain Jack telling people about the monsters that appeared in the episode that just aired. 86.156.40.244 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't watch it to confirm as I'm not from the UK. But in any case, I don't think it particularly noteworthy for this article. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Rose's voice?

From the moment she appears in the episode, it looks like she's biting her lip and trying to lisp at the same time. She sounds very different from S1/S2 - thoughts? 83.226.223.63 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevant to improving article? --Cameron (T|C) 20:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too...Collagen injections maybe? Her lips looked very very full...Totally not relevant to improving article though 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did notice a slight lisp, it wasn't much of a difference, but it was there. Possibly she's had some kind of surgery or similar, or else she's just developed it in the last year or so. DeadDeers (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I read on a forum that Piper had to go back to S1&2 and relearn Rose's voice and even then got it poorly (HINT HINT : this should be sourcable and included in the Production section if a reliable source can be found). --MASEM 05:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she has a lisp throughout. I wondered if she'd had her teeth fixed...then I saw them! She claimed in an interview in Confidential that she 'had to go out and buy boxed sets of her first two series'. This is suspicious, surely she would have been given complimentary copies (or maybe Chris Evans got those in the divorce). DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The "lisp" was mentioned by the Metro newspaper's TV reviewer this morning: don't know if it's worth noting though. Even he said it was a "minor quibble".Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't. If it is later revealed that Rose is actually speaking Demosthenes-like with a mouthful of Bad Wolf, then it might be notable. As it is, it is crufty cruft-cruft, and it needs to be smited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Two-parter or three-parter: Straw poll

RTD said in the latest DWM that whether the finale comprises of two or three episodes is a grey area which is dependent on both viewer choice and watching the episodes. Because there's a dispute, we should see what the consensus is on this matter.

Two parts

1. No 'To be continued', as there has been in previous multi-part stories. You could make an argument that "The Doctor's Daughter" is part of a three-parter, by the same logic. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 20:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Per the above. --Cameron (T|C) 20:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. It's a two parter, hence the "next time", not "to be continued" caption.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
4. I agree by the same argument. See also a comment I have made in the three parts section. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
5. As per OZ's reasoning. Also, the production codes suggest that Turn Left is the prologue for the finale, which is The Stolen Earth and Journey's End. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
6. I have the same reasoning, if you remember up until this point last year Utopia was listed as a single parter. When the 'to be continued' was seen it was put together with The Sound of Drums and The Last of the Times Lords as a three parter. As it showed clips from the next episode it should be assumed it is a single episode unless some official source lists it as a three parter KP-TheSpectre (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
7. "Next time" instead of "To be continued". Strike that... last double parter (The Sontaran Stratagem / The Poison Sky) did not have it either; they seemed to have dropped the use of "To be continued" (as opposed to series 2 and 3). However, the stories do not have any contagious continuity... It's a side-step into Donna's personal parralel universe. In any case, we should see next weeks intro to see how the episodes tie in and regard it as seperate episodes until then. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
8. All "Multi-parts" have the "next time" clip at the end of the credits to prevent spoilers. Turn Left had this before the credits, so the finale must be a two-parter. 89.242.170.146 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Three parts

1. The ending was structured as such, with the ending more dramatic than Fear Her. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
   1. Comment. I partially agree with that analysis. The end of Fear Her referring to a storm approaching is certainly less dramatic than the end of the universe. On the other hand, the ending of Fear Her featured the only ever super-long preview that showed footage from both of the last two episodes (although footage of Doomsday, such as a woman being exterminated, was quite minimal). We can certainly agree that the ending was approximately as dramatic in the before-preview sense as Utopia, and far more so than Boomtown, by far the least dramatic episode 11 of all in its ending. Nonetheless, I don't think the level of drama is the key thing, and I side with the two parts view. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      1. See also DWM397, and the episode's commentary. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure whether it counts for anything, but this week's TV Times (21st - 27th) says that it is a three-parter. I'm inclined to agree that it is a three-parter, given that this episode seems to have started the ball rolling for next week's episode. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3. My case is above for it being a three parter - furthermore, it's not just the ending, but what I would call a major part of the plot line of the episode has yet to be concluded. The 'stars are going out' part of the plot is presumably still a problem the doctor has to sort out and ultimately what is meant by the 'end of the universe'. I think I would find it confusing seeing further episodes without seeing this one first. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting really is evil

In my opinion it's a three-parter, but Russell T. Davies says it may or may not be a three-parter depending on how you look at it. I think Russell T. Davies' opinion counts more than the result of any straw poll, and even (though I find this hard to believe) more than my own opinion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But RTD doesn't have an opinion... so how can he override out consensus? — Edokter • Talk • 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But he does have an opinion. It's his opinion that you can interpret it as first of a three-parter, or a single episode. We just need to figure out how to translate that into a table - although I imagine the end result will be to default to either stand-alone or three-parter status. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

His "opinion" is, that he does not have an opinion, so it's in the end up to us to decide how to treat it. I'd say, we wait for the series to complete and see how the BBC and other sources are treating it and then change it if necessary. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The upshot of his opinion is that we can't definitively describe it as a three-parter, and no amount of polling will make it valid for us to say it is, even if the three episodes do seem closely related. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the current view in the DW articles seems to be to follow the BBC, let's do that. When they tell us it is a 3-parter or a two-parter, we can add it then. Not a moment before. Consistency is key here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it not true that every multi-parter has the next time clip at the end of the credits? Utopia did, and so series 3 ended with a three parter. Turn left had the next time before the credits like normal, and so could not be considered as part of the next episode. This is from the show itself, so it has to be a two parter finale.89.242.170.146 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not necessarily true. Don't forget, they only brought that in after fans made an almighty no against cliffhangers being ruined by 'next time' clips, I think after The Empty Child \ The Doctor Dances. Regardless, it means we cannot use it as a marker to determine two-partedness/three-partedness... _TalkIslander 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Islander is correct. LEt us wait and see. I am not sure how many times it requires saying, but I shall do so until folk begin chanting this mantra in their fitful sleep: 'we are not in a hurry. This is an encyclopedia, built upon references and references only. We are not willing to post without citation'. Repeat it a few times, and add an Om to it to give it rhythm. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a copy of DWM 396 just before it came off the shelves (my old copy went missing). The quote is:

So... does Turn Left segue directly into Series Four's final two epic episodes, as Utopia did last year? Does it, sir?
"Maybe," Russell intones, his face partly wreathed in enigma by a swirling time vortex. "You'll just have to keep watching til the very last second. I just keep my head down during those two-parter or three-parter arguments - I leave that for the viewers and DWM to decide. I don't really mind, to be honest, as long as people keep watching!"

Sceptre ^(talk) 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, Graeme Harper (director of all three) has said in both the Turn Left podcast and in DWM397 that he thinks it's a three-parter. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that him considering it a three-parter does not make it so. We go by the clearest indication, ie. the show itself. The show itself did not follow the established protocol for multiple-episode stories regarding the next time trailers, and the stories of the episodes segue rather than merge. The Poison Sky / Doctor's Daughter link was done in a very similar way, and no one's calling that a three-parter. U-Mos (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Harper did direct the episodes, so I'd say he's reliable. And if you want to get picky, half of the trailers for last year's episodes (notably Family of Blood, Blink, and Last of the Time Lords) were non-standard (as well as Fear Her). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding next time trailers, I meant that it came before the credits rather than after, as has been the standard for multiple episode-stories since The Empty Child (and including Utopia). What I mean is that RTD wrote it, and he doesn't wish to specify. Harper, the director, is not really the person for whether it's a three parter or not, as just filmed the episode. He didn't put it together in the context of the series; the produce (I assume) did. And the protocol for a standalone episode was used. U-Mos (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Doesn't wish to specify" doesn't mean "it's a two parter", or "it's a three parter". Davies is just being his usual cockteasing self. I think Harper would be an authority on the matter: he has worked on the show longer than anyone else has (he's been directing since Baker); and television production teams don't do things in isolation - often RTD will send drafts to most of the production teams with specific intentions. I think someone who has worked on the show for over forty years and had an active role in the episode's production is more reliable than the OR-like trailer argument. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Revisited. — Edokter • Talk • 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rose a companion?

She doesn't even see or talk to the Doctor. I don't think she should be considered a compnaion. Just a guest star. Pdb781 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be that picky then it should be aDonna Noble episode not a Doctor Who episode because Catherine Tate was onscreen throughout the episode whereas The Doctor was onscreen for five minutes total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.52.145 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Companions are listed in the opening credits after David Tennant, right? Billie Piper is there. So Rose is a Companion in this episode, no need to argue about it. --SoWhy ^Talk 22:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think she can be classed as a companion in this episode, because a companion by definition is a person who accompanies another. And here Rose does not accompany the Doctor anywhere. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about normal companions but companions in Dr. Who and I think it is covered by the definition. As I said above, the BBC placed the actress portraying her in the spot where only the Doctor and his companions have been listed before and thus they certainly wanted to indicate that she is a Companion. Otherwise, they would have placed her with Donna's family and the others at the end credit sequence. Similarly Jack Harkness is a companion in Bad Wolf and The Parting of the Ways despite not being with the Doctor for most of the episode. --SoWhy ^Talk 11:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just having the name before the credits does not make her a companion. By that criterion, Kylie would be a companion! Also, I am not sure that the production team of the day is necessarily in a position of authority - after all, they will move on in a year or so! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought Miss 'Astrid' Minogue was concidered a companion, albeit she was only a brief one. Before she (sort of) died, she had pretty much signed up for the job. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, official sources and Wikipedia as well consider Astrid Perth a companion. As long as you cannot make a case against the BBC's choice, I don't see any reason to change anything. After all, by your reasoning, Donna is no Companion as well, as her contact with the Doctor is minimal at best and most of the episode she is not with him or even knows him! --SoWhy ^Talk 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're going off-track with this Kylie thing. Rose still hasn't met the Doctor by the end of this episode. She's no more a companion then she was in "Partners in Crime". Pdb781 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

She has met him before multiple times, she just didn't talk to him in this episode. But seeing that the official credits treat her differently in Partners in Crime and in Turn Left, the BBC must have meant to see her as a companion in Turn Left. As stated above, there is no reason to think anything different, considering the definition: "Companion, in the long-running BBC television science fiction programme Doctor Who and related works, is a term used to describe a character who travels with and shares the adventures of the Doctor." That fits Rose pretty well. But on the other hand, it wouldn't fit Astrid, as she never traveled with him. But she is a companion, because the BBC wanted her to be one. And Rose is one for the same reason, I don't see any evidence that there can be doubt or that would argue against it. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course she's a companion. She will be so until she whips the rubber mask off at the end of episode 13 and reveals that she was really The Meddling Monk all along. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"...travels with [which she hasn't since "Doomsday"] and shares the adventures[which she also hasn't since "Doomsday"] of the Doctor." The status of Rose and the Doctor's relationship is identical to what it was in "Midnight". They haven't been in contact since her departure, and at the end of "Turn Left" this is still the case. By the logic used here then Sarah Jane should be considered a companion in "School Reunion", but she isn't, even though the evidence is far stronger.Pdb781 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning Donna is no companion in that episode as well. And yes, Sarah Jane should have been a Companion in School Reunion. But changing all those things is OR, because the BBC is the authority on that and imho we should keep what the episode says and not change by our own definitions. --SoWhy ^Talk 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No, by that reasoning Donna is a companion because she is seen travelling with the Doctor at the start and end of the episode. Pdb781 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.212.47 (talk)

I don't think these attempts to rationalize things are that important. Rose is a companion because we say she is (same with Kylie, mainly because even straight women and gay men fancy her). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just have a rule that if they are in the opening credits they are listed as a companion, and if they're not we don't? Seems simple and fair to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because if they are listed in the opening credits, then that means they were listed in the opening credits, not that they were a companion, WP:PROVEIT makes it clear, if you want to define Rose Tyler as a companion, you need a citation to back it up, or else it goes. Inventing rules is WP:OR, plain and simple Fasach Nua (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant just for the purposes of this infobox. She is one of the three main cast members, and I believe the infobox as designed at the moment only allows for "doctor" and "companion" in that section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rose didn't do any companioning. If it can be backed up by a reliable source--e.g. the BBC's official website--then so be it. Perhaps it would be prudent to add an additional field titled "starring". Matthew (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We know that in all articles about episodes (at least the new series) the Companionship-status is exactly the same, i.e. those listed in the opening credits are companions. Changing this way, in which we did it thus far, needs a source, as we can be quite sure that the BBC knows it better. And otherwise you would have to source every companion in every episode, for I might like, for example, to challenge Donna's status as well, seeing that the Doctor is not present for 95% of the time.

Also, "companion" is an informal term and thus quite certainly open for definition and thus creation of rules. And if such a rule was instated, the broadcast itself would be the primary source. That's something for the Wikiproject to decide though. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Rose is a former companion. I don't think we have enough info at this time to warrant such an inclusion. As Piper is preggers and getting more 'on the nest', that is going to introduce an interesting plot twist that I am almost positive the Who-team of writers are not aiming for. There is absolutely, positively NO reason for us to rush on this. We are not the Doctor Who exclusive revelations site, and should never, ever become such. We are an encyclopedia, and as such, we await citable information. We do not get to connect the dots, but await someone who connects them for us, so we can blame them when/if they are wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Really Rose is a companion of a companion. This episode is unprecedented in that this episode focuses a companion rather than the doctor at all. However Rose seem to take place of the doctor with his manner-isms and knowledge of future events, unknown if it has any significance. I agree that the word companion itself is a rather informal term, and find that a consistency must be met. If companion is not set as someone listed in the main credits, then revisions for previous episodes must be done.Toomanysidesofme (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's an either-or thing. They are a companion if they are in the opening titles (i.e. Rose here), and also if they fulfil the travelling/assissting role within an episode without getting top billing (i.e. Adam and Jack in series 1). That's how I see it. U-Mos (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but the latter leaves room for interpretation. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of reverting back and forth, the consensus is that Rose is not considered an companion at this moment instead is put with the guest stars, until a consensus of the meaning of companion in the info box is established? Toomanysidesofme (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Or we could simply await word on its meaning from any one of the many sources out there on this. We do not establish whether one is a companion or not. We cite someone else who does. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

and in the meantime? All I am saying is that in the meantime, until we can source it, we leave it as is. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you have a reliable source that notes her as current companion? Coz her being a past companion is not the same thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I never even claimed she is a current companion. I think you misunderstand. I am well aware that past companion =/= current companion.Toomanysidesofme (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well never mind then. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me, we've (the Wikipedia community who originally decided the infobox template) basically made a rod for our own backs. The BBC has never (to my knowledge) used the term 'companion' in credits, yet we have such an entry in the infobox. This can only be sourced by other means which may not always be available. Obviously we'd have to take the following idea to higher places than this talk page, but wouldn't it make greater sense to adjust the infobox to be be more compatible with the way cast are treated by the show itself? For example having a 'Starring' field instead of 'Doctor' and 'Companion' field, perhaps putting a note beside the relevant credit as to they're companion status. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If the BBC put her in the titles, that's a strong indication that they consider her a "companion", per se, in the given episode. U-Mos (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A strong indication, but not a definate one. By putting Piper in the opening titles the only thing the BBC were definately indicating was that she's a star and not a guest star. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But Rose is listed on the official BBC website as a companion for this series. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/characters/rose), and on the same web page within the videos section on the right side you can find next time videos and trailers of the past, current and next episodes which refer to her. So I think that because the BBC lists her as a companion for this series and because she is included in the opening credits she must be a companion. OpinionPerson (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That link looks pretty clear to me-- Series 4, Companion, Rose. Is that the reference we've been waiting for?:)Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for some other Wikipedia members to agree with that and then we could change it in the article. OpinionPerson (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. Next episode will be quite a list. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine. U-Mos (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The source lists her as a Companion for the series (in the American sense of the word, series≠season), and not the episode. Let;s wait until we have a better source. By the very same token, we could list Sarah Jane as Companion as well (and to forestall arguments, I wouldn't endorse that either, merely having an image and name mentioned in the ep is not enough for inclusion). We need a source that says Rose is listed as a COMPANION for this episode. Otherwise, it's us connecting the dots, and I am fairly certain everyone knows my views on that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it lists her in the British sense of the word; it's in the Series 4 section of the site (hence the "s4" in the link).Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the change again, not because I think the change was wrong, but because a concensus was reached for the way it is now. To revert while ignoring that concensus negates the point of having a concensus, whether reverting was correct or not. On the latest dispute, I agree with Pawnkingthree, the page is about Series 4 not the whole series, hence if you look under doctors you will only find the Tenth Doctor. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be persuaded to actually await the end of discussion before making a change still being discussed, Pete. The link does not say that Rose Tyler is listed as a Companion in the episode, and that is what we need for any citation on point to say before altering the infobox to say something different. Not even the BBC credit roll at the end of the ep lists her as Companion (or Noble, for that matter). Without a stronger citation specifically noting Tyler's placement in the ep as CO-companion, we cannot connect the dots ourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you've completely misunderstood my intentions. You don't need to 'persuade' me to await anything. My point is, we should all be waiting until we've discussed the situation fully before continually reverting this information back and forth, which is something you had just done based on your own opinion alone. To my knowledge we'd reached a point where we were all happy with the way it was, I merely reverted the article to reflect that and requested we continue to discuss it before changing it again. Please don't tell me off for carrying such an action otherwise I may be 'persuaded' not to bother again and let the chaos reign. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

section break

As Billie Piper is not a guest star and there is no consensus as to if she's a companion (the BBC website does backup the claim...) I've added an additional field: additional stars. I cannot find fault with that. Matthew (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If I might add, I think that arguing a point without citation is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. For the third time, I've reverted out the listing of Piper as Companion. I haven't done so to be difficult; we need a citation that says that she is a companion for the purposes of the episode. Without it, we cannot list her as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope "the third time" was not referring to your reversion of my edit, which, as is plainly obvious, did not list her as a companion. Hopefully you can backup your claim that she's a guest star--a credit she does not receive. Matthew (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, it was, Matthew. What is plainly obvious to you is not such to the reader, and thusly is an example of you speculating without a citation to back it up. She is listed in the BBC credit roll. She is not listed in that episode as being a Companion. Anywhere. Without citation, we cannot - I repeat, cannot - list Piper as Companion. Hopefully, you can back up your claim that she is listed as Companion anywhere which is a credit she does not appear to have been given for this episode. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We must be looking at two different articles! The version of the article I'm looking at ~doesn't~ list her as a companion; however, it does list her in the cast section as "Also starring". :-) Matthew (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's roll with that - now explain why she is listed as 'also starring'? Do you have a citation to indicate that she now shares top billing with Tennant and Tate? You see, giving her that bump - without citation stating that she is given that import - is a speculation as to her importance. That is also what we call synthesis, advancing hte position that Piper is a lot more valuable to the series than has been referenced. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you're ~not~ claiming that I listed her as a companion now? Make up your mind! Are you disputing that she receives a starring credit (along with D. Tennant and C. Tate)? 'Cause perhaps we watched two different versions of the episode. It's unlikely though. Conversely, can you explain why you wanted to list her with the guest stars? Matthew (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In BBC press release, it cites Billie as guest star. As of now it is special guest star in the Cast section, which I added citations to. I think the debate has ended.Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is painfully obvious that Matthew is correct that Rose was put as additional star, not companion. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, did you mean incorrect, TooMany? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No I did not. My error was that I should be replying to you instead. He is correct that he did not list Rose as a compainion, which you reverted- for no just reason. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is rather incorrect, TooMany. I reverted out the listing of Piper as companion or guest star, as that is not a claim supported by citation but is instead a speculation as to her placement within the cast. No citation, no inclusion. No one is saying that she cannot be listed as a guest star, along with everyone else; we cannot list her as Companion, though- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In Matthew's edit, she is not listed as companion. End of story. You sound like a broke record at this point. While we are at it, why is everyone else listed as guest stars? Where is the citations for that? Her starring status comes from her being in the title credits.Toomanysidesofme (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

section break II

I added the title/description 'Additional Star' to the Infobox template so that we know that Rose is not a companion in this episode. But what I find strange is that in my source Rose is listed as a companion but in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_Left_%28Doctor_Who%29#cite_note-BBC_press_release-1 it said that Rose is a guest star. Now I'm confused! OpinionPerson (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I propose that it should say Special Guest Star. Because it is a different type of guest star we are referring to. I was the one who inserted that citation. I was reading the DoctorWho project and it says the the cast information is from the listing in the episode for consistency. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. OpinionPerson (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, the TV Times magazine for the week in question, says in the article (page 16 I believe) that Rose returns as a companion this episode and also states that it is a three parter. I'll provide quotations when I get home. 193.62.43.202 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The *TV* Times, not the Radio Times? If the former, it isn't definitive because TV Times is just a listing magazine with no formal authority on matters BBC. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not judge about any authority questions, as the term "companion" is informal anyway. If we have a reliable source that says "She's a companion", then we can cite it, no matter if it's sanctioned by the BBC or not. As I argued above, they probably wanted her to be one anyway. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the extral template field; Billie is either part of the cast, or a guest star. "Special Guest Star" is still guest star. As it is, she was billed right after Davis and Catherine; only companions receive such a billing (just Like Freema in The Sontaran Stratagem). The extra parameter breaks NPOV as it is entirely interprative. My take is that as she will be a companion in the last two episodes, and consecutively appearences in prior episodes are generally considered to be as companion as well, we should list Rose as companion for the time being. — Edokter • Talk • 12:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding to that, that if it's a 3-parter, she naturally is in the same role in all three parts^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 12:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your logic but the reference currently being used to support Rose listed as a companion states "David Tennant plays the Doctor and Catherine Tate plays his companion Donna Noble. Billie Piper guest stars", which just adds to the confusion.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this logic. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does anybody have any clips of Billie and Kylie getting it on? --Jenny 09:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The source currently listed does not support her as being a companion. I have removed it and added a Citation Needed tag. If someone has the source information that claims to list her as a companion, please add it. Ophois (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Pompeii

Should it be worth mentioning that since the Doctor wasn't around to save Earth from the Pyroviles on August 24, 79 ("Fires of Pompeii") that humanity would be extinct by Donna's time?--216.234.222.130 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I was going to say in my edit summary before I edit conflicted, presumably the Doctor could have saved the Earth from the Pyroviles at another time without Donna's help. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 05:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is OR. Does it address the problem of the Doctor ding BEFORE Fires of Pompeii in the episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 06:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also OR to believe the Doctor's absence would have resulted in a paradox. The Doctor says it himself at the end. When this creature screws with time, the universe compensates for its annoying behavior. Even Donna's little pocket universe would have such a mechanism. Unless this problem is noted in an outside source (the Fact File, maybe), it's not relevant. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually if is NOT OR to say the Doctor's absence would have resulted in a paradox. The Dcotor himself states that in Donna's case the creature created "a great big parallel world". Donna then comments that "I thought you said parallel worlds are sealed off." The Doctor then replies that "They are but you had one created around you." The Doctor then uses the Library as an example of how it happens a lot around Donna but that doesn't make sense as the Library's word was a virtual world akin to the Time Lord's Matrix not a parallel world as the Earth in Heart of Steel was. The stars going out seems to relate to what the Doctor said in Two Doctors about the universe prematurely dying if causality on even a minor level is violated (the minor level being his second incarnation having been killed even though his sixth is alive and well). This may also explain why the Trister's plan with Sarah fails--if she was not there in Pyramids of Mars then Suteck gets loose and Earth in 1980 is 'a dead world circling a burned out star'. Much the same thing appeared in He Jests at Scars... so the is enough evidence bot in and out of canon that somethign is not quite right here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you've read WP:OR. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Unless you can source what you've said above, from reliable sources independent of the subject, it can't go in the article.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

UNIT cleared the at least the Carrionites up - it was a line Gardner cut. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bee disappearance

"Sylvia Noble mentions that the bees are disappearing, which has been mentioned by Donna in "Partners in Crime", "Planet of the Ood" and "The Unicorn and the Wasp". In reality, the bees are indeed disappearing." No, they are not. There was a press fad on some bee colonies collapsing (Colony Collapse Disorder) for unknown reasons, but overall, bee populations are just fine. 83.191.175.124 (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, as the statement is unsourced (and hardly relevant to the article anyway), I've removed it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Our article on CCD is ridiculous: "In the U.S., at least 24 different states as well as portions of Canada have reported at least one case of CCD".

At least one case? There must be fifty states in America where there is at least one case of a man declaring himself to be Napoleon. I've got serious doubts about that article and the alleged syndrome, and in any case it obviously has nothing to do with Doctor Who. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Russel T. Davis mentions in this weeks confidential, that bees are disappearing in the real world and in the series. Thats a pretty solid tie to the CCD. Although the series might give another explanation for the phenomenon Davis later, at this point the characters may very well refer to CCD. Heinrich k (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Turns out not - The Stolen Earth had a reference to some of the bees being alien, and of them retreating to the Medusa Cascade - the Doctor followed the trail to locate Earth. Digifiend (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Concealed links

It's bad style to conceal the names of articles in links to events, so I suggest that instead of the form "[[article name|phrase describing event in alternative timeline]]" we stick to "phrase describing event in alternative timeline ([[article name]])". As well as clearly showing what we're referring to before the link is clicked, this style translates well into hard copy. Wiki is a technology we're using to construct an encyclopedia, it isn't necessarily the only form in which the encyclopedia will be used. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Partly agree, however, the form of "(as referenced in [link])" is also rather clunky. — Edokter • Talk • 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The parenthetical link, "([[article name]])" , is sufficient. With an appropriate preamble (the current version reads "The narrative turns to the alternative history created by Donna's choice, far bleaker than the established course of events") the meaning of the links in parentheses will be clear to the reader. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. All the episodes are listed in the continuity section. Either as it is or no links at all, I say. U-Mos (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added "in previous episodes" to Anticipation's phrasing, if only to help make it clear what the parenthetical bits are (and to keep the plot out of universe ) --MASEM 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Monry Python Wonderful Gravity Grannies Babies Hownottobeseen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A542:2B85:0:A599:AE33:8C:35A8 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Other invasions stopped but unexplained

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I think this is getting into a general subject discussion rather than something to improve the article. Let's stop here! Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

This bit has since been removed from the Continuity section by user Masem, but I'd like to point out that since the premise behind this whole episode was another scheme "courtesy" of The Trickster, the last time he tried something like this, he himself said that he "turned away" all the invasions that were unaccounted for in that episode. The same ought to be assumed for this one, as well.

Homoaffectional (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To say the beetle is part of the Trickster's Brigade is fine, that clearly was stated, and thus mention can be made. To compared anything about these events beyond that is entering into speculation, and should be kept out of the article. --MASEM 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I wasn't taking issue with you removing it from the article, but I first saw the summary for this story a few hours ago, and less than a half hour after I first read it, I noticed that part was gone, so it got me thinking about it and figured it's still worth discussing even if no longer included in the article proper. I don't see why the talk section isn't an appropriate place to mention it as a very good possibility and explain a perceived continuity error in the story. -- Homoaffectional (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Master never invaded because Jack never grabbed the outside of the Tardis, and so Yana never regenerated into Saxon. The Trickster didn't have to do anything in that particular case. And it's the only (present day) Earthbound scenario unaccounted for, bar most of SJA, and Martha's Torchwood episodes. Digifiend (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Master's story arc wasn't one listed by whoever included it into the Wiki page before it was removed by Masem, so that explanation is irrelevant. It wasn't meant to be addressed here by me, as it had already been covered in several places, including possibly this page in a previous edit, that has since been undone, if you go that far back into the page history. ~~ Homoaffectional (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I didn't realise the article had ever mentioned it - and so it shouldn't, as it would all be speculation. Digifiend (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be explained. It's hard to imagine how the alternative explanation of the Pompeii eruption could be worked into a brief montage. You could have fun with this. Perhaps Captain Jack gets zoomed back in time by the Angels or repairs his time bracelet, takes Toshiko back to Pompeii (where in this timeline she perishes) and he fixes the problem and gets buried in ash. At the end of the montage, newsreader says "and today archeologists digging in Naples were astonished to dig up a living man in Roman dress who claimed to have survived the 79AD eruption of Pompeii but become trapped underground." It worked in Torchwood... --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. You clearly haven't been paying attention to Dr. Who fan geeks everywhere... every single throwaway line is dissected ad nauseum. If you'd heard half of the fan theories about how Professor River Song is somehow really Rose based on her asking the Doctor if he knows who she "is"... it's amazing what people can pull out of their own ass when they want to delude themselves into it being so somehow. Asking the question about what happened with the Doctor's other adventures with the Doctor not around seems very reasonable and moderate by comparison. ~~ Homoaffectional (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good theory Anticipation. Because Martha wasn't around, Owen wasn't shot, so Toshiko wouldn't have died in the same circumstances either. Hence your Fires of Pompeii suggestion. And of course, Sally Sparrow wasn't able to stop the angels in Blink, due to the absence of the Tardis, so they could've sent Jack back there. Digifiend (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't the place for it, but I didn't start it, so I should probably end it. The Pompeii eruption is very easily explained. B/C the doctor and Martha are dead, then they cannot interfere with the Daleks plan to take over Manhattan (presumably the Daleks plan was stopped by whatever disaster befell America and made it so that there were only 60 million fat Americans for the Adipose to take). Because Dalek Caan never engaged the emergency temporal shift, then he couldn't rescue Davros. Which means no reality bomb. Which means no need for the 27 planets. Which means Pyrovilia is never taken, which means the Pyrovilians can go home and leave Earth to it's own devices. Which means the volcano erupted all by itself, as it was supposed to.

Ta-da. Done and dusted. I'm also available for parties59.38.32.9 (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's one flaw in your argument--the stars were disappearing, so there was a reality bomb. Now how all this relates to Pyrovil is another matter and OR. The only thing we can say is what the Doctor said -- the (bubble) universe compensated for the missing Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Detail

The opening line of the synopsis talks about "the planet of Shan Shen, which has an ethnic Chinese culture". Now, I know the planet's name sounds Oriental, but is there any basis for the supposition that the entire world has "an ethnic Chinese culture"? That would be rather like an alien visiting Shanghai and assuming that all humans must look Chinese and speak Mandarin. (Do we even know that Shan Shen is the name of the planet, rather than an area or country or city? I can't remember.) Aridd (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BBC press release, I think. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

All the signs were originally Chinese script as well, until the Bad Wolf twist at the end. Digifiend (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The signs were Chinese script I think, yes, in the area where the Doctor and Donna were wandering. To say that it is so all over the planet is an assumption. Again, an alien visiting China might assume that Mandarin script is "the human language". Aridd (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, and so the press release needs to be checked. Shan Shen (the name) needs to be sourced to this in the article, as it was not mentioned on-screen. U-Mos (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The name "Shan Shen" *is* mentioned on screen, a woman is trying to sell Donna something just before she meets the fortune teller and she says something along the lines of whatever she's selling is the finest "in all Shan Shen". 86.145.214.40 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the phrase "which has an ethnic Chinese culture" is mine, replacing "Chinese-style planet" or some such. I was thinking about this this morning, by coincidence, and thought it should read something like, "visiting an ethnic Chinese city on the planet Shan Shen". Although to me the choice of name (Chinese-sounding, possibly even real Chinese) suggests that it was Davies' intention to imply that the entire planet has a Chinese culture, it doesn't do any harm to be parsimonious in the description and let the reader make his own mind up. I haven't seen any press release, but the BBC one should clarify the setting I should think. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we know whether "Shan Shen" means anything? Just as a guess, what's the Chinese for "Bad Wolf"? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not according to the dictionary I tried but I don't speak Chinese. But even if it did, including it without a source would be OR. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I'm asking on the talk page. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Akuro (悪狼) I believe- featured in Gridlock. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 10:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No that's Japanese. --Anime No Kyouran 11:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Chinese pronunciation of the same characters would be "è láng".

Shanshen could mean about anything in Chinese, unless one gets at least the tones or, even better, the actual characters to be used in this context. One possible meaning is 山神 (shān shén), which means "mountain god" but there are other possible meaning. The character 神, shén, for "god" is shown a few times at the beginning, but it may have nothing to do with the name of the place. Comments about the rest of the characters can be found at this forum post.

My main problem with this Chinese influence is: why does the Tardis not translate the written text, as it does with text in other places? Mlewan (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the TARDIS appreciates the decorative aspects of Chinese calligraphy :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Exaclty, it's decorative. When they went back to Pompeii the writing was very ancient rome-esque but it's rather hard to the same thing with the chinese letters. --Cameron* 11:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

music

not entirely sure i should be posting this here, woulld probably be better posted on aforum. but can anybody tell me the name of the music that is playing just before donna gets sent back in time? i feel i should know it but cant quite put my finger on it. i'll delete this section from the talk page when i get an answer.--Numberwang (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Doomsday, from the episode of the same name. Digifiend (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

not the bit right before she gets sent back, the epic sounding music that builds up to it. stops when rose says sorry. i'll up load a clip if i get a chance -Numberwang (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep WP:TALK in mind - this discussion clearly isn't about improving the article. Also see WP:COPYVIO with regards to uploading any of the episode's contents. _TalkIslander 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Greyhound 40?

When the UNIT soldier reports that the doctor is dead, is that greyhound 40/ Ross? Because I think that should be mentioned- cause he's a great character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.182.141 (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The callsign is Greyhound 40, but there's no reason it has to be Ross - the callsign could easily have been assigned to someone else. _TalkIslander 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity Error

In Voyage Of The Damned, it is stated that if the Titanic crashes into earth, the nuclear explosion would destroy the earth. In Turn left, the explosion merely destroys London. Is this continuity error worth noting? 86.138.52.145 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. The only explanation I can think of is: at the end, the Doctor says that when the time beetle changes events, the universe usually compensates around it. It could be that somehow the universe "compensated" around these events to make the destruction less that what would have really happened. 69.204.5.228 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whilst we are on the subject of continuity errors, I added this to the continuity section after the section listing the events revisited:

The episode does not explain how the past events of The Shakespeare Code, Daleks in Manhatten/Evolution of the Daleks and The Fires of Pompeii, all potentially apocalyptic interventions that the Doctor prevented after meeting Donna, were avoided.

It was removed as it was deemed 'not necessary' - however maybe if there are a large enough number of similar continuity errors then maybe there is merit in mentioning them? Alienturnedhuman (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

UNIT fixed it up. Excised line. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a section further up which discusses this, but basically you just need to use your imagination. It's Doctor Who after all, it's not Star Trek; it's bordering on fantasy and not really meant to be taken all that seriously I shouldn't think. Fires of Pompeii is theorised further up. The Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks were clearly defeated by some massive catastrophe. After all, the adipose only took 60 million Americans (and we all know there's a hell of a lot more than 60 million fat Americans), so there must have been some kind of disaster, the Daleks and their army were clearly caught up in it.

There. Everyone feel better? 59.38.32.9 (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Rose Tyler crazyness again

As the citation does not note Billie Piper as a Companion in the accompanying citation but instead as a guest (star), she has been re-added to the list of other guest stars. As the following episode, The Stolen Earth notes the FIRST time that ""also starring" is used, we now know that unless otherwise listed, folk are simply guest stars. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, just because YOU think it's crazy, it does not mean it is. We discussed it to death and consensus was companion-status, hence it's not been changed for a week now... --SoWhy ^Talk 17:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, take the time to understand that the crazyness was in regards to the hefty discussion, not the idea itself. Assume a little more good faith, okey-doke? In the absence of citation, it is synthesis - ie, advancig the position that Rose Tyler can and should be listed as a Companion - we cannot incoude such. Consensus does not override our core policies. I'm sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"In the case of a tie, the image, the article, the category stays" Words said by you, my friend. Core policies defined by you. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, as stated multiple times above, companion is a inofficial title, which is open to consensus. We have sources to list her as companion as well, even if you might claim, that they are not definite. But please, I assume good faith where appropriate but in this case you should have re-joined above discussion instead of starting a new one. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You might find it very helpful when attempting to use my statements against me to actually understand the policies in place regarding those statements, SoWhy. There is no contradiction there. The quotation was gleaned from a DRV discussion regarding the inappropriate deletion of an image from Forest of the Dead. The context of the statement is that admins are not privy to deciding deletion discussions on the basis of their personal beliefs, and especially not in the cases of a tie. Synthesis is a part of our core policies, and no amount of consensus, short of a change at the Wikimedia Foundation level, alters that. You are taking one pice of info - the list of prior companions and another piece of info - the cast list of the episode, and attempting to integrate them without a connecting citation - ie, something stating that Billie Piper's character of Rose Tyler is a Companion for the purposes of identification of this episode - is a violation of our synthesis policy. You advocating listing Rose as a companion in this episode without citation that does so. That is in fact synthesis and original research.

And you will render good faith until/if such time I call you a rabid ass-clown, or some such. As that is not likely to happen, I expect the same faith as is rendered unto you. It isn't a negotiation - it's an expectation, with consequences for failure to provide it. If I choose to start a new section to revisti a topic - especially to refocus concerns - on the same page as the previous conversation - it isn't bad faith. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was a new section really necessary? Anyway, as I have already pointed out the TV times stated in their feature on Dr Who (Page 16) that Billie Piper returned as a companion. The TV times is a reliable source as defined by the relevant wikipedia policies. I would change the reference myself, but don't know how to construct it for non-web media. 84.65.58.167 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that source, please? If it is a differnt link than that listed at the top, I would very much like to see it, as it might fix the problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that although BBC press release cites Rose/Billie as a guest star they have done so with Martha in The Doctor's Daughter, where she is clearly a companion. For note I was the one who put that citation. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would provide a link, however as it is a weekly TV listings magazine it is not available on the internet, and I don't have a scanner to scan in an image. It is however, verifiable to anyone with a copy of the magazine. I do not believe that Verifiability means verifiable on the internet. 84.65.58.167 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't have to be verifiable online. It has to be verifiable in general using citation. You can cite that magazine. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You are correct, but in the matter of contention wherein folk in one country have access to a source that isn't available in another, i viewable source certainly helps to quell dissent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Rose is being considered as a companion in this episode, shouldn't Sarah Jane be considered a companion in "School Reunion" and Mickey in "The Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday"? Ophois (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the logic we are being asked to accept, yep, they sure would. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead screwdriver/Optical illusion?

In the scene where the Doctor's body is being put in the back of the ambulance, the sonic screwdriver drops from his hand and the usual sheen appears to dim, as if the Doctor's death affected it also; it's already been established that the Doctor and his TARDIS have a telepathic bond, and the screwdriver is ostensibly made from the TARDIS or technology within it. Could this simply be an optical illusion, or does it appear intentional? Radical AdZ (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WHo cares? THis is not a forum here and we have no source to include it. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Leave the speculation and cruft to the zealotry forums, please. We are an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

It's called a discussion page for a reason, Arcayne; had I been presumptuous enough to just dump it on either this or the sonic screwdriver page without at least deigning to ask the opinion of others, (granted, I forget the 'notability clause' in my original question,) I no doubt would have been treated with just as much contempt. I'm tired and busy so I will relent this time, but remember: it's anal retentive navel-gazers like me and you that provide this 'encyclopedia', such that it is, with content, and it's comments like your own that make the huddled uninformed masses think that we are all cult members. Have a nice day. Radical AdZ (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing against discussion to improve the article and if you had a source for it, I would be the first to argue to include it. But we cannot do OR as it's against the guidelines and thus it's just tiresome to discuss something we will never be able to include in the article. No hard feelings tho and you are welcome to help within the DW-WikiProject :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Audience figures

The final viewing figure (including time shifting) of 8.09m is over a million more than the initially reported "overnight" figure of 7 million, which appears more than normal. Just wondered if this was notable enough to be mentioned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-Assessment

I assessed the article to "C"-Class as I think it meets the criteria, but Arcayne disagrees, so I want some input. Also, I think the importance should be the same as with The Stolen Earth as it's a multipart-episode. Please comment. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it does meet the C-class criteria too. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at the article, and I have reversed myself as to the article being C-class. Usually, it's exceptionally helpful to invite someone with no knowledge of the topic to weigh in on the value of he article, so its cause for pause when someone who's been actively working the article reassesses it - naught against SoWhy, but we aren't very neutral when it comes to the value of the work we have put into the article.

That said, the things I found weak with the article were the continuity section. In Stolen Earth Sceptre has been doing some outstanding work with integrating the continuity section into other (and sometimes new) sections, so as to better remove the in-universe flavor of the writing and avoid the problems of cruft-magnetry (nope, that isn't a real word, but the BBC might still use it ;) ). I am sure everyone knows the good work did on SE, so its likely that we all know the problems remaining with this article. So it is 'C' class. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out before, Continuity sections are quite acceptable within the Project's guidelines. I only used the criteria on the Quality Scale to do the assessment, not taking in account my own work with the article and compared it to other articles with "Start"-Class and thus came to "C"-Class. Comparisons with TSE are not in order anyway, as TSE is "B"-class. But glad we can agree on it now :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 06:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And I am sure we can also agree that following the example of SE is a pretty good way to get to B-Class here, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to meet the C-class criteria to me. It's clean of garbage, basically, and gives a reasonable depth of detail. It's stable, worked on by a very active WikiProject... seems at least C-class to me. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood folks

The summary says Jack, Gwen and Ianto stopped the Sontarans, but Gwen & Ianto were killed and Jack was stranded on Sontar. Was this actually shown? I just saw the ep on the Sci-Fi Channel (which has been known to "trim" eps before) and none of those three appeared. --Dr Archeville (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All that's in the untrimmed episode is what Rose says. She implied that the Torchwood team stopped the Sontarans at the expense of Gwen and Ianto's lives and Jack being taken prisoner. DonQuixote (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode star/companion

I noticed the silly "cn" tag on Billie for a companion because she was "not billed as companion; billed as episode star" - can I just point out that that is the same for Jack Harkness in Utopia/sound odf Drums/Last of Time Lords, and Martha in Sontaran stratagem/poison sky/ doctor's Daughter 86.154.185.86 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack fulfilled the role of companion in those episodes, and Martha did the same in "Poison Sky"/"Doctor's Daughter", more or less in "Sontaran Strategem". Rose does not, and doesn't even see the Doctor. As you already know, there is a discussion on this in the WikiProject. Ophois (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is actually occurring here. Check it out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Adipose

In Turn Left, 60 million Americans are disintegrated into Adipose. But in Partners in Crime, Foster only accelerated the process that far because the Doctor and Donna got too close to her operations. I understand the switch to America over Britain (devastated by the Titanic crash), but don't understand the sudden disintegration without a meddling Doctor and Donna. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The acceleration was time-wise not population-wise. Foster was going to expand to everyone in England anyways (which is what happened in America). The Doctor and Donna only caused her to start accelerating the harvest of the test cases in London before fleeing. DonQuixote (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Under construction

I'll be adding information about the production of this episode over the next few days, from the various materials available. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chino-planet?"

Would someone be so kind as to point out where it describes Shan Shen as a Chino-planet? I'm almost sure the correct term would be Sino-planet.

Thanks 59.38.32.9 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Image

Okay, D part of the BRD cycle...

There's a disagreement about which image should be used. Like my post on WT:WHO, I prefer a screenshot of Rocco's arrest, because it offers more in the way of analysis; and Islander prefers the time beetle on Donna's back. Other people's thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 09:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, hadn't seen the discussion over at WT:WHO. Some valid points are raised, but (current 'beetle' picture aside) I really dislike the Rocco picture. Mainly because, at the resolution we have to use it, all you can see is a street, with a truck with people riding in the back. It says nothing of the plot or reception, and little of the production. Now, I'm not saying that the current picture is perfect, but in my opinion it's certainly better than the Rocco picture. It shows something that is integral to the plot, and also shows how this integral plot device was realised - production. Perhaps it fails on the reception, but (in my opinion) it's still doing better than the Rocco picture. Is there perhaps an alternative third picture that could be considered? _TalkIslander 10:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't we use both pictures? I like the current one for the infobox, it offers more for the overall aspect of the episode within the continuity and within the series 4 storyline. I think Sceptre's picture can well be used for the "Broadcast and reception"-section, where it makes more sense than the infobox where the image should comment the whole episode, not only one part. Regards SoWhy 10:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A picture on its own says little. I don't think the current picture adds much. It's just a plastic beetle on Catherine Tate's back. I could say that Rocco's arrest is integral to the plot and production: the arrest really starts the maturation of alternate Donna because she's so horrified by it. It also emphasises Davies' main point about this episode: life during wartime. The Auschwitz parallel is pretty much thrown onto the viewer like an anvil, with Rocco saying he's going to a "labour camp" and Wilf saying "it's just like last time". And most reviewers will talk about the WW2 parallel. We've got to remember that it's not just about the plot; we need an image that can fare well for the production and the reception too. Otherwise you'll get people IFDing the image. And I guarantee you: the beetle image would get deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But my point is that you can't see that this picture depicts Rocco's arrest - it's just some men in a truck on a street! Trust me, your image would get deleted just as quickly as, if not faster than, the beetle picture. What you're describing is one thing; what your picture shows (or doesn't) is another. That aside, I still don't like this particular scene being used, because it's not as integral to the plot, whereas the 'beetle' on Donna's back is. I'm quite willing to accept that the beetle picture is not the best, and another should be used, but I don't think it should be the men-truck-street picture. _TalkIslander 11:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Trust me, your image would get deleted just as quickly as, if not faster than, the beetle picture." - just to expand, the most commonly used argument by fair-use-activists (for want of a better term) is that "such-and-such an image could easily be described in a very small number of words, and is non-unique". This one can and isn't - men in a truck on a street, not unique ;). _TalkIslander 11:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you can't see. What matters is the critical commentary. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not true at all. Point 8 of the NFCC states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" - if you can't see what is being "critically commented" on, then the picture does not "...significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic...", and nor would it's omission be detrimental. Based on that argument alone, that picture would be deleted in the blink of an eye. _TalkIslander 12:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Images are clickable for a reason: to get a larger version of the article. Would this image work, then? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be fair to Islander, he's just trying to avoid confrontation with the "fair-use-activists". He's right in that they'll say exactly these things since they've done so before. DonQuixote (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

They'd be more concerned with the current image (weak rationale, no commentary) than the truck image... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This may well just be me being a bit thick, but where does it state that any particular type of commentary is needed? _TalkIslander 16:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Review dump

I'll remove this section once I've finished; I'm just keeping the sources here for later. Five reviews seems to be the sweet spot for this episode, and we already have one. Target size: around 30-35kb. Target to complete w/o copyediting: 28th. Target for FAC: 31st.

• the stage
• ign
• syfy
• digitalspy
• Den of Geek

Sceptre ^(talk) 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot Unclear

In the "Plot" section, it says:

After Donna materialises in Sutton Court, Chiswick, she realises she cannot directly influence herself at the junction; instead, she causes a traffic jam by stepping in front of a haulage truck. As she dies, Rose whispers two words for her to relay to the Doctor: "Bad Wolf."

This is very confusing. How can Donna relay the words to the Doctor if she's dead? Please re-write the sentence to be more clear.

Truth be told, that's what Donna (and the audience) was wondering right when she died. As it turns out, the next scene explains it. DonQuixote (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I and several other fans have wondered is if the Doctor died in "The Runaway Bride" then who saved the Earth in "Fires of Pompeii"? This is a major plot issue with this episode.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

well it is a 45-minute show(1hr minus commercials). They can only show so much of the Doctor's presence(or lack thereof) and the results. Andy5421 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BruceGrubb's question... The question is speculative, and therefore, so is the answer. In Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane (The Sarah Jane Adventures), the Trickster prevented other aliens from coming to Earth so that the meteor would cause chaos for "no reason" rather than for "profit" or other motives. The Time Beetle, being of the 'Trickster's Brigade', could conceivably have had a similar effect on events prior to Donna's contemporary London life (however this explanation cannot go in the article).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Doctor-lite

I removed it. Sounds like POV/Opinion to me, no sources for calling it a "doctor-lite" episode Andy5421 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious it's Doctor-lite, but here's at least one RS that asserts that. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Doctor-lite" is an official production term. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article opening: why's there a big chunk of info on its reception?

Someone reverted this, but there's a big chunk of info on the ep's critical reception in the lead-in, much of which is unreferenced. Is there a reason for this? If it's because it was especially praised, that should be mentioned in the opening sentence of that paragraph. 82.41.72.10 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. It's a summary of the article's contents, and is thus not required to be sourced. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Time Beetle

Is it not, in any way, related to the time reapers from "Father's Day"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as can be determined, nothing has been said to connect the two. DonQuixote (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They're both black flying creatures that only exist to feed off "time holes" (i.e. when someone goes back in time to change the course of events), the beginning of this episode instantly made me think of the other. It's probably not said to be connected because "Father's Day" was in the Ninth Doctor + Rose era, and besides, Rose seems quite knowledgeable of the time beetle upon revealing it with the lights. Also, as these three last episodes (before the TV specials) are a culmination of all four seasons since the program was revived in 2005 (and therefore, featuring an "all star cast" of characters), it is only natural that even such obscure creatures would make it into the "guest appearance" spot. I'll try and find sources later on, but I'd love to see if anyone sees the connection besides me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my LORD

Well, this morning I got an edit war warning for changing it to three-parter and then having it reverted and then... I did some background reading, and this debate has been had before, as far as I can see, and there is no rliable source for either, although several tertiary sources contradict one another. I'm not sure whether it counts for anything, but that week's TV Times (21st - 27th) said that it is a three-parter, as does my episode guide. therea re arguments for it being stand-alone, but the episode's ending doesn't fit in on its own, and the continuty bit was BEFORE teh controversial "Next Time" trailer. RTD had said it can be either, and I personally think that the evidence points towards three-parts. Can we get a resoloution on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoop (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you finaly did some background digging. Simply forcing your opinion by edit warring was not a smart move. Now you have pointed out there are arguments for both, but we ultimately have to go with reliable sources. Since neither stance can come up with a definitive source, we should treat it as a stand-alone episode by default. Also, the fact that only the end ties into the next episode, and the rest has no continuity with the next episods at all, we cannot substantiate that it is a three-parter. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turn Left (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/20090326074410/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo2009.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo2009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929211152/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2008/06/doctor-who-411-turn-left/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2008/06/doctor-who-411-turn-left/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508100443/http://www.thewriterstale.com/pdfs/Doctor%20Who%204%20Ep.11-%20Shooting%20Script%20-%20Turn%20Left%20-%2030.01.08.pdf to http://www.thewriterstale.com/pdfs/Doctor%20Who%204%20Ep.11-%20Shooting%20Script%20-%20Turn%20Left%20-%2030.01.08.pdf

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) 01:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved Turn Left (Doctor Who) → Turn Left and Turn Left → Turn Left (disambiguation). The episode, however niche, is determined to be the primary topic since all other uses are much more obscure. No such user (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

---

• Turn Left (Doctor Who) → Turn Left
• Turn Left → Turn Left (disambiguation)

– The newspaper changed its name, leaving this as the only subject called "Turn Left". Unreal7 (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic does not become less notable or disappear even if it is no longer referred to in the present tense. No evidence presented to show that the television episode is a primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Update Withdrawn vote, per pageviews numbers cited below. 162 etc. (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose We generally try to avoid having contemporary media be the dominate name in disambiguation areas. --Masem (t) 14:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

? Unreal7 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not leaving a support or oppose [yet], but if the contemporary media is the primary topic then why should it not hold the "dominate name"? TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Because by its very nature of being contemporary, it likely will wane in time compared to other topics. Eg: at the height of when Avatar the film was all over the place, we did not move the film over primary topic of avatar the philosophical context despite the imbalance of page views. Its generally why we don't use page views to judge what is the primary topic. --Masem (t) 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem, User:TheDoctorWho, that's just not at all correct. Usage is one of the two major ways to determine WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and traffic statistics is the number one way to determine usage. And we have thousands of articles about contemporary media where the title is the primarytopic. If it has more usage, and more significance than competing topics, it's primary. WP does not have a bias against popular culture. Dohn joe (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Not because the newspaper changed its name, but because the episode article gets 99.89% of pageviews. I don't think I've ever seen such a high percentage. People view the episode article almost 1,000 times more than the newspaper article. Dohn joe (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly needs disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Clearly" how? Dohn joe (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

  Clearly because nobody is going to look at the phrase "Turn Left" and think, oh right, the Doctor Who episode! Sometimes we need to apply WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's clearly not the case - I might not think about it and you might not, but over 99 percent of our readers who visit a "Turn Left" topic are thinking of the episode apparently. Fortunately, we don't decide primarytopics based on what you think of first, but what makes the encyclopedia easier for our readers and editors to use. Dohn joe (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a Doctor Who episode. Being clearly labelled is causing no Daleks to suffer. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not a reason. You've got quite the knack of putting words in people's mouths. Unreal7 (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you actually believe primary topics can exist on Wikipedia? You always favor disambiguation, even when it is not necessary. -- Calidum 20:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It's the only article called Turn Left. Assertions that it needs disambiguation, despite there being no articles to disambiguate it from, do not make sense. Lennart97 (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. We have no other article titled Turn Left. The student newspaper at Cornell used the title Turn Left for a handful of years before changing its name, more than a decade ago. -- Calidum 20:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and others here. The "oppose" !votes seem not to be based on article titling policy to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.