Talk:The Doctor's Daughter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freema Agyeman[edit]

Is she really in this episode? 86.156.200.162 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check the ref. — Edokter • Talk • 16:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Troughton[edit]

Is it worth noting that Alice Troughton who directed this episode is NOT related to Patrick Troughton? --Amaccormack (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, if you check Alice's page, you see that it's not known whether or not they are related. Robin.lemstra (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Torchwood Declassified (i think) they said they asked her if she was related to Patrick and she said she wasn't. 86.156.206.228 (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's not related, it's mentioned in the official BBC Podcast for The Doctor's Daughter by Russell T. Davies.--99.154.12.75 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I've added an image to the infobox but it doesn't seem to be displaying. Any way to fix this? —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope... the infobox now has code to not allow future images. (The image does not pass NFCC by the way.) — Edokter • Talk • 20:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On both counts, that is pathetic. Why does the image not pass the NFCC? And since when was there code banning images - the Sontaran page had one, both did, and I'd be fascinated to read the discussion leading to such a consensus. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was done following the multitude of very heated discussions in the recent past. If there is indeed a suitable image, propose it on the talk page. As for the image you uploaded, even I think it doesn't add to the article; it's a very old magazine scan of some aliens that would not in the least look like the ones appearing in this episode. — Edokter • Talk • 12:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, pardon me. It was from this month's Doctor Who Magazine, and was specifically of those aliens. What in the world gave you the other idea, and how can I revert the change to the template's code so that consensus can be sought? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't a picture be added before the episode has aired? Seem illogical to me if we have a perfectly fine picture up for grabs?--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this image acceptable? I'm not sure of the source (it was on the forum) but clearly shows the same creatures as the magazine pic, right? I'm going to be bold and upload it, and count the seconds until someone deletes it (FYI, you probably need to Ctrl+F5/purge cache to reveal the new thumbnail - don't know why!). —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a guy who uploaded DVD screen captures for a lot of the episodes the first chance he got...and saw them deleted away in the last few months, I know how tempting it is to decorate the articles with images. The point is that a lot of other people think that images should be functional and have made it a policy. At the very least, we can wait until the episode airs so that we actually know what it is about, and therefore we know what the article should be about, so that we can justify whatever image we choose. DonQuixote (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the trailer confirms those monsters (awful-looking things!) as the Hath, I have re-added the image as describing them better than words could. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you feel that there is such a rush to add a picture? That picture is of poor quality, so surely it's better to wait for the episode to air, and get a better picture (perhaps one of the Doctor's Daughter?). Besides, you're just circumventing changes that were made to the infobox, that specifically barred the use of pictures before an episode airs, by adding it to the main body. Patience is a virtue - Wikipedia has no deadline. TalkIslander 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please say what is poor about it. The purpose is to illustrate the villains, and it does that very clearly. What more do you want from it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've reverted again without allowing discussion to develop, please say what is poor about it. The purpose is to illustrate the villains, and it does that very clearly. What more do you want from it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, all I can see is a glowing green tube near where I assume the mouth to be. After that, the image is too dark, and has too great a contrast with the flames to see anything clearly. All that aside, surely a picture of the Doctor's Daughter would be more appropriate here. All that aside, wait until after the episode has aired. There is no rush. It's why the infobox was modified, don't try and circumvent that.
Also, don't talk about reverting without allowing discussion to develop - that's exactly what you did, and when it comes to non-free content, it's always better to leave it off whilst it is discussed than leave it on. TalkIslander 10:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of your points are remotely relevant. You can see what the creatures look like - fishy things with a green tube near the mouth, as you say. So what's unclear? Why should we wait for the episode to air? Where's the consensus and/or policy that we should wait? And how could an image of one actress possibly pass the WP:NFCC? It's crazy, every point you make.

Unclear image?! —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK; fixed image as per talkpage discussion. A new version with increased contrast; flames removed, and brightness increased. Cropped to increase clarity. OK? Since I have taken effort to address the points you made, and comprehensively fixed the image (as you could doubtless have done too!) I consider that I haven't violated the 3RR - I didn't restore the same image, it was one that was better as per your demands (or do I mean requests... no!). —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, you haven't broken 3RR. Good to see that you're aware of it, though. Secondly, something else that, looking at your talk page archives I can see you're aware of is WP:CIVIL - be careful, you appear to be dancing around it's boundary. As for this picture, your new version is better, so I shan't remove it. However, you've still failed to answer my main question: what's the rush???. I still feel that it'd be better to wait until and after the episode has aired, and get a better picture still, than rush and add one now. That is exactly why the restriction was placed on the infobox, disallowing pictures before the episode aired. I'll repeat: Wikipedia has no deadline, so it makes most sense to just wait until the episode has aired. Also, for the record, don't cite sofixit to me - as the one who uploaded the image, it's your responsibility to fix any problems with it. TalkIslander 10:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As the one who uploaded the image, it's your responsibility to fix any problems with it." - load of utter nonsense. If you had Wikipedia's interests at heart, and thought that it would be better with an improved version of the image, then you would improve the image regardless of whose legal responsibility it was.

Why rush? Why not? Is there a policy saying that articles needn't be as good as possible until their subject has come to life, so to speak? No. Of course not. And I'm not getting involved further with this completely stupid business. "Your responsiblity", indeed. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image presently in the article does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy in my opinion. The Hath, while mentioned, are not discussed in any depth that would require an image. They're simply being depicted for the sake of depiction! Matthew (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says they're militaristic and new monsters - how else would anyone know what they look like? Can they be described by words alone? —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the reader need to know what they look like? what is the significance of their appearance? This is a purely decorative image failing WP:NFC#8 miserably Fasach Nua (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article discusses their militarism and their resemblance to fish. How can the precise details of their appearance and character be depicted, pray? —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a precise definition needed, beyond that supplied in the text? What is the significance of the extra information, and how would the exclusion of the image be detrimental to the readers' understanding of, The Doctor's Daughter?
They may fail to understand the emotions, themes and general feel of the episode, given that the general feel will be significantly dictated by the monsters. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the emotions, themese and feel not explored in detail? Why are they significant? How do you know they are dictated by the monsters? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Fasach Nua, this article does not discuss the Hath in any amount of detail that would require an image (a non-free image). As per NFCC#8, the image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm a bit peeved. I deliberately introduced the image barring code into the infobox to limit the number of debates about these. Every week for the past few, and some more for VOTD and PIC, we've had the same debates about the image and the same result comes through every time (the Adipose being an exception). I'd really like it made a project guideline not to include images in future episode articles unless it is vitally (and I mean, vitally) necessary. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just ignore this talk page for two more days! That's what I'm going to do! I'll come back when it's all over and we actually have some content to add! --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Sceptre here. I mean, we aren't an advertising service after all. There is no need to include a picture before an episode airs. None at all. TalkIslander 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor's Geneology[edit]

In Smith and Jones, the first episode of season three, Martha asks "Are you sure that wasn't you? Do you have a brother?". The Doctor then mutters, "No not anymore". —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeSteinke (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary/plot section[edit]

Why is it that on the articles for series 4 episodes, the plot/summary sections seem to have been merged into one and considerably shortened? If for example, The Poison Sky is compared toLast of the Time Lords, there is a marked difference in the length of the plot section, and the inclusion of separate plot and summary sections. Gammondog (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked myself that question. In my opinion the best idea would be to raise this point at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who.--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a move away from the overly long plot sections that were plaguing the older episodes, so we're trying to cut down on it. With success I might add; the first episodes of this season ("Partners in Crime") became a featured article instantly. Another example where this worked is "Doomsday", among others. — Edokter • Talk • 22:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...if that's the case, who started the long articles from the previous serieses(?) in the first place? Why not just have a short summary right from the beginning in 2005/6?86.164.58.147 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Jenny (Doctor Who character)[edit]

Character has only one appearance and any encylopedic information about her can be covered just fine on this article. Being the Doctor's Daughter does not automatically entitle her to her own article, this isn't a Doctor Who fansite. Article has already been redirected, but then reverted, so I'm starting a discussion as requested.  Paul  730 18:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No brainer. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It's just a redirect. What's your problem with that? I'm removing the merge proposal as there's nothing to merge, Paul. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a redirect? Jenny (Doctor Who) is a redirect, Jenny (Doctor Who character) is an article.  Paul  730 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You linked to the one that was a redirect! You made a mistake, it would appear (diff between your original merge proposal and the latest one - now correct). Well, we can soon fix the other one, I'll redirect it now. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - now can we remove the merge notice? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the redirect initially but then amended my mistake. Sorry about that. Even if the article did need to exist, I don't think it needs the "character" bit in the title. Yes, if there's no objections to the merge then by all means remove the tag, I'm only going through this procedure because User:Zythe's attempts to redirect it were reverted with request for a discussion.  Paul  730 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the episode, we can see the possibility of her returning is high, and the Doctor Who Confidential episode discusses the conception, casting, writing and directing process integral to the character. One must decide whether this information best belongs in "The Doctor's Daughter" or "Jenny". Should this article exist while discussion continues, it should be moved over "Jenny (Doctor Who)".~ZytheTalk to me! 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"From the episode, we can see the possibility of her returning is high" is 135.29% original research, so that's no reason to create an article! I say redirect or delete, she's not notable enough for her own. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on your side in this, I was being balanced! ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not a Doctor Who Minor Characters page, or similar? If not, then the article should indeed be merged here. U-Mos (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm for now it should be merged. I wouldn't be surprised if she shows up again. But for now she definitely doesn't merit an article. --GracieLizzie (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the creation of a Doctor family page. So far we have a granddaughter (Susan), daughter (Jenny), a brother (referenced in Smith and Jones), as well as non-canonical speculation that the Master was related to the Doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.131.94 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we only have a grand-daughter and daughter. Brother, there's nothing we can say about it, speculation about the Master was officially put to rest in "LOTTL"; and there's little we can say about the others. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny seems to be a minor character for now, deserving as much attention as any other one-episode character. If she comes back as a companion or in a spin-off, she would probably deserve her own page, but until then, I'd say a merge is the way to go, with an entry on "minor Doctor Who characters." - Stephen Goldmeier | Profile | Talk | (._.) | 05:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with zapp, merge for now, if/when she returns then it should be reiewed Fasach Nua (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone clarify why the rationale for keeping Astrid Peth, Grace Holloway, or Sara Kingdom or, for that matter, Donna Noble prior to the announcement of her return, doesn't apply to Jenny? Thanks. Dirk Amoeba (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a merge. I think she is a major enough character, despite her so far brief appearance on screen. David (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grace Holloway was Eight's only on screen companion. Therefore I believe she is significant. I don't know about Sara Kingdom as I have little knowledge of the Hartnell era. I was against keeping Astrid, but she acquired so many citations that I suppose she is notable in the wider press. --GracieLizzie (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but merge her into Minor Doctor Who Characters, not into the episode itself 84.92.147.23 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From both in-episode and out-of-episode information, it is far from complete guesswork to say that this is not going to be the end of the character. It is all but stated by various individuals involved. There is also individual merit (of character reception/review, as well as the actress that is involved), as well as the previously mentions of the logic for previous characters who were in the same status. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, reading the article after only a couple of days, I'm impressed with the improvement. There's more sourced encyclopedic information than could be covered properly on a list of characters. It probably could be covered on the episode page, but the character article does hold up well on it's own. Normally, I'd be opposed to a one-off character having their own page, but, like Astrid Peth, Jenny has clearly recieved media attention and I think redirecting her article would probably be unconstructive. Consider my merge proposal withdrawn (I'll leave the tags up since other people may disagree with me).  Paul  730 01:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. As usual the Who project did a great job of making the article a non-cruft attracting ground, and I suppose we can expect to see Jenny again on television or the comics. Alientraveller (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I must reassess my decision from a merge to a keep now that the article has been improved. The citations prove she is notable to the wider press and it it's a much more well constructed article now similar to the Astrid Peth one, and if we are keeping that we should keep this. However, if we do keep I suggest we move it to Jenny (Doctor Who) in keeping with the Wikiproject's MoS. --GracieLizzie (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with GracieLizzie and think we should follow the example of other articles in need of disambiguation (like Master (Doctor Who). --SoWhy Talk 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article Jenny (Doctor Who character) is being improved and is far bigger than it was when it first created, to merge the page with the episode article would just make the final article huge, keep it as it is. Maxtitan (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the directly above...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very keepable! But pleaese, move to the Jenny (Doctor Who) namespace.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it myself, but I honestly have no clue how to properly do it seeing as how I never have before. Like many of the tricks of the Wiki code, it's lost on me. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the change of the pages and all links to Jenny (Doctor Who character) are now done. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it properly, since it requires deletion (normally it should go to WP:RM). — Edokter • Talk • 19:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contiuity[edit]

In the 2005 episode Bad Wolf the doctor says "wipe every last stinking Dalek out of the sky" i am sure that a character in this episode and another one in last episode states pretty much the same thing except of cuase the daleks unless im incorrect should that be meantioned in anyway? Pathfinder2006 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna's 'inconsistent' appreciation of the TARDIS[edit]

I have removed, from the 'continuity' section of the article, a paragraph discussing Donna's change in heart about whether the TARDIS is a sports car, as suggested by the Doctor in Utopia (versus Captain Jack's space hopper of a vortex manipulator), or an old box, which she had said in an earlier episode. This was not her point; she was saying that suddenly becoming a father would cause a shock reaction in the Doctor and that his TARDIS (formerly his single guy vehicle, much akin to the two-seater sports car) into a people carrier, which is more attributed to family life. This is not a compliment from Donna to the TARDIS, but instead a gag about the implications of single fatherdom that had been bestowed temporarily on the Time Lord. Thus, it is not an error in continuity, for the two occasions are separate and do not refer to the same attribute of the TARDIS. LorD (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny's "Regeneration"[edit]

The current version of the article doesn't out and out state that she regenerated in the Time Lord manner but "Jenny comes back to life as the Doctor had expected would happen if she was given time" certainly suggests that she did (since the Doctor was expecting her to regenerate). Given that the cloud that escaped her body was exactly the same as the terraforming thingie that was hanging around her when she died, and the small matter of her, you know, not regenerating, I'd suggest changing that sentence. Kelvingreen (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was the terraforming gases having healed her somehow. I think they're leaving whether she can regenerate ambiguous (so perhaps were she to recur or get a spin-off, it would be very William Hartnell.)~ZytheTalk to me! 19:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah there, to say it was the teraform is a bit OR. Especially as the substance that came out of her mouth was the same as seen from the Doctor in the CiN short and the Christmas Invasion (add to continuity section maybe?). I'd say she didn't regenerate in a very flimsy story device simply because Moffet has agreed to reprise the role, but obviously that can't be added to the article. U-Mos (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the Regeneration Stuff was a yellow and white forceful burst. The Terraforming Stuff is a yellow and green wispy cloud. The Stuff that comes out of Jenny is a yellow and green wispy cloud.
Secondly, my whole point is that saying "Jenny comes back to life as the Doctor had expected would happen if she was given time" is Original Research because it suggests regeneration, when it is far from clear that this was the case. I'm not saying that the article should say that the Terraforming Stuff brought her back (because that is also OR), but that suggesting that she regenerated is implying something which cannot be verified. Kelvingreen (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny clearly did not regenerate. She revived herself one way or another. David (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is all original research, so let's steer clear of it! —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point. Let's not change it to "Jenny is revived by the terraforming gases", but let's also not leave it as "Jenny regenerated" (which is more or less what it's saying now). Kelvingreen (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to the best of my knowledge of time lord regeneration, if jenny regenerated then she would of changed apperance and personality but she didnt she just comes back to live. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't suggest regeneration. It says she "came back to life", which is precisely what she did. Now, the point is would it be too far to make a link between the "gas" and the similar scenes in The Christmas Invasion and the Children in Need episode? U-Mos (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor expected her to regenerate. The article says "Jenny comes back to life as the Doctor had expected would happen if she was given time". The suggestion, therefore, is that she regenerated, which is OR. Change it to "Jenny comes back to life" and there's no problem. Kelvingreen (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, even a sentence as simple as "At the end of the episode, Jenny revived." would cover it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.51.79 (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to Meanwhile, Jenny revives part way through her own funeral., as I believe this leaves it suitably ambiguous, to account for that fact that we really don't know what caused it GGdown (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. :) Kelvingreen (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, when I wrote about the Doctor's expectations, I was talking about his "But she's got two hearts" protest. Even so, the cause is OR. That's why, having had that point made by any number of editors of this article, I was persuaded to remove OR in favour of the terraform gas hypothesis from that Jenny article (which will likely soon be merged, moved to get rid of "character", or moved to an existing list of Doctor Who characters anyway ). 129.67.53.232 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it was a combination of her being part timelord and the terraforming gas. I think one without the other couldn't bring her (or anyone really) back to life.Dalek9 (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The First Time?[edit]

Is this the first time it has been revealed that the Doctor "lost" his family? I'm not going to add it because I don't know for sure, but if it is then it should be added to the continuity section. U-Mos (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before since Doctor Who's relaunch. David (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure I recall him mentioning the loss of his friends and family, perhaps in Gridlock. Kelvingreen (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned before. In the Ninth Doctor episode "Father's Day", he tells Rose, "My entire planet died, my whole family. Did you think it never occurred to me to go back and save them?"--Drscompanion2 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a passing reference in "The Empty Child" when the Doctor was talking to Dr. Constantine, though I couldn't quote dialogue. It was shortly before Dr. Constantine succumbed to the "possession". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.52.168 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was something along the lines of:
Dr. Constantine: Before this war I was a father, and a grandfather. Now I am neither.
The Doctor: Yeah, I know how you feel.
If I recall correctly. --GracieLizzie (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating + Britney's Toxic Video[edit]

Two points:

1. Is there any way the dating of this episode can be established from the equations/methodology Donna made in the episode?

2. In the fact file for this episode on the BBC Doctor Who website it states the laser beam sequence with Jenny was specifically inspired by Britney Spears' Toxic music video:

"Laser Quest

Jenny's impressive acrobatics in a corridor full of deadly laser beams was inspired by Britney Spears' Toxic video."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/s4/episodes/

Seeing as this has been specifically stated by the BBC, this seems worthy for inclusion. Winterspell (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So where, then. does the laser "original" scene of Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Entrapment" belong - not to mention the "Charlie's Angels" variation? Or, if you want to go back to lasers protecting diamonds, a number of film precursors.

Metroid reference?[edit]

Is it just me or is the guitar music during Jenny's emergence from the cloning chamber reminiscent of the music from the Metroid series of games that plays when Samus comes back to life from a save point? Is this worth mentioning? (probably not...) Ilikefood (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but... it's just you. And it couldn't be added anyway. U-Mos (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) I didn't think so, but i thought it would be worth mentioning. Ilikefood (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor out of regenerations?[edit]

From the way the Doctor spoke of Jenny being to much like him when it seemed she was not regenerating seems to imply that he is in fact out of them, since I have yet to see anything stating that yes his is out of them or if he has more this looks to be an important implication and I wonder if it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.157.79 (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up that possible implication too, but including it would be original research. Besides, if one were to extend the OR further, we could say that we know for sure this is the Tenth incarnation and that he should still have at least two regenerations left (barring some new plot device or retcon). Seeing as we can't really say for sure either way, it's best not to speculate at all. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we are on this subject, how do we know that the 9th Doctor is actually 9th, and not 10th, 11th ....? Fasach Nua (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Tenth says so in that episode with K9. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Doctor meant that she was so much like him in that she was willing to sacrifice herself for someone else. No need to bring his regeneration into this. DonQuixote (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor has two more regens left, but it was established via the Master that there are ways to extend that number indefinitely. The Master had used up all his original regens but the Time Lords gave him the ability to regen at will in return for his assistance with the Time War. The Master allegedly chose not to regen when he died in the Doctor's arms. - ZachsMind (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has three regenerations left, the limit is 13 bodies. Digifiend (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the OR further, one could imply that Regeneration is not a natural things for Time Lords but something they have to learn first and so Jenny, never having learned it, couldn't do it. The Doctor says in the prison cell that being a Time Lord is much more than having the same genetics. But of course, that's all speculation, so let's just wait and see what happens in the series. And let's just hope David Tennant does not quit too soon because he does a very good job ^^ --SoWhy Talk 15:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to that. The Master refused to regenerate, which implies it's not a simple natural reaction. Kelvingreen (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hath insignificant to this story[edit]

A fair-use warrior has just - as usual - deleted this episode's image as the "Hath are not significant to the story". Is it me or is that the most stupid thing anyone ever heard? —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is a stupid thing to say, the edit comment was "remove image of hath, appearrence not significant to story", which is entirely accurate Fasach Nua (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please back up your removal of the image, which is clearly what this section is for. I notice the section about you and WP:POINT on your talkpage; I urge you not to bring POINTy material here now. Open discussion by justifying your removal, or I will replace the image. Yours electromagnetically, —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suprisingly, my justification is ...appearrence not significant to story Fasach Nua (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Fasach Nua means is that "The image of the Hath does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of the article." He would, of course, be correct; the Hath are not discussed in any amount of detail that would require an image. (edit conflict) Matthew (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, we can arrange that, then. I'll add a passage about the Hath and re-instate the (rather well-uploaded, admittedly!!!! lol) image. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The m:mission of WP is to minimise non-free content, and to try a shoe-horn in an image is unacceptable, the test is neccessity, not desire. The appearence of the Hath is not a major plot device in the programme, and it's inclussion will never meet wp:nfc#8, by significantly increasing the reader's understanding of the episode, The Doctor's Daughter Fasach Nua (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately a brief description does not automatically require an image. You have to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", not merely depict what they look like! Matthew (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew; could you provide a diff of an edit you've made in the last six months which actually made a positive contribution to Wikipedia? You seem to do an awful lot of policy enforcing that isn't that helpful (warring over that {{cn}} tag from last week, warring over images - more than one of which you were overruled on)... but I see nothing which has been a per se improvement. Could you enlighten me? —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a productive way to prove your point. The Hath are second string to Jenny. If any pic is needed, it would be one including her. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to prove my point; I made a new one. And Jenny clearly can be pictured without words. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I didn't know this discussion was regarding my contribution history! Matthew (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you do now, and that's all that matters. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a busybody passer by but....I would remind the users taking part in this discussion to assume good faith! --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be good if some users attempted to show some... :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think a picture is necessary! All other previously aired episodes have at least one picture. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't; and if you can think of one that passes our copyright guidelines, feel free to let us know. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From above: "They may fail to understand the emotions, themes and general feel of the episode, given that the general feel will be significantly dictated by the monsters". Here's a perfect example of why a picture shoudln't have been uploaded before the episode aired. You stated that they'd have a significant effect on the 'general feel' of this episode, which they most certainly did not. However, how could anyone have known that before watching the episode? They couldn't, quite simply, perfectly highlighting the reason why we should have avoided a picture altogether. As for what picture do we use now - how about a picture of the 'source' escaping into the folliage and rest of the world? That's very significant to the episode, and cannot really be described in words. TalkIslander 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that useful and constructive piece of smug self-satisfaction. That really advanced the current debate! —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any time ;). FYI, it wasn't actually designed to advance the current debate at all - more help certain people to learn from their mistakes made before the airing of this episode. TalkIslander 11:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a picture of the Doctor cradling his dying daughter, that shows the reader the emotion of the episode--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fasach reverted me with out an edit summary, he has already used up 3rr in a day, someone please talk some sense into these fair use warriors, before i take this policy to he village pump.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old school reference?[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that a lot of this story (the crashed ship, the Human/Hath war) is comparable to The Face of Evil? I thought it was a good comparison, with the Humans and Hath being like the Sevateem and the Tesh, but I suppose it clocks up as original research... Arraitchjee (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed clock as original research. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

61st Century?[edit]

I've raised this here rather than in the surely-outgoing Jenny (Doctor Who character) article. That article lists her home era as the 61st century. Quite simply, who says? I don't believe the episode was dated at all. U-Mos (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire sub-plot about the date included dates, didn't it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Donna dismissed the first digits as "some alien thing" or similar, did she not? It doesn't make it the 61st Century. U-Mos (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, she didn't, iirc. She said that first came the year, then the day, then the month. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Watches* Exact quote: "assuming the first two numbers are some big old space date, then you've got year, month, day". Not really a definite placing in the 61st century. But it's not in this article at any rate so it's no big issue. U-Mos (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the Doctor mentioned that it was a different calendar system, so it's not the 61st Century according to our current calendar. DonQuixote (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first two digits could indicate the century, rather than a random space date. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenth Doctor article refers to Jenny being from the 61st century. If that's not confirmed, it needs editing out. Digifiend (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan[edit]

Have any reviews pointed out how the ending was a close rip-off of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, yet? Are they really that low on new ideas?!? George The Dragon (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a great big sign at the top of this page pointing out that it's not for general discussion of the episode? Take it to a forum somewhere. - Scelestus (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was asking whether any reviews had mentioned it in order to try and find a reliable source. For what it's worth, I'd merge all episodes into a single list and put all characters on one article. Kill the cruft, etc. George The Dragon (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ending[edit]

Jenny said she was going to be fighting aliens and doing an awful lot of running, so doesn't that mean she is going to find the Doctor, because Donna said that she and the Doctor fight aliens and do an outrageous amount of running. Don't forget, RTD said that some episodes would have things that would be in the finale. So far we've had Rose, so why not Jenny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.55.63 (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention that on a message board. Wikipedia isn't one. Digifiend (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adam's reference?[edit]

"Not impossible, just a bit unlikely", at the beginning of the episode. --91.84.200.229 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
his point is that it is a reference an outside reference. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is "So what?" —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you really love that original research thing don't you but anyways Douglas Adams is quoted saying that to which the doctor says it. for your infomation Douglas Adams used to be a writer for doctor who which makes it an Outside reference and if you want to know the 2005 series articles has them and i think it is worthy of a meantioned in this article. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't for a moment condone Treasury Tag's quite appaling incivility, I have to agree with her. Unless you can find a reliable third-party source stating that the link was intentional, this remains original research. TalkIslander 19:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Him, actually, and it's not incivil; Pathfinder is clearly a user who understands WP:NOR and thus shouldn't have proposed the edit. If you have a problem with my behaviour, feel free to file for arbitration. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies for the mistaken gender. You should be aware, however, that just because someone knows of a policy does not give carte-blanche to be incivil when pointing it out (and yes, stating "so what?" twice is certainly incivil). TalkIslander 20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, there are numerous channels and venues for you to pursue a grievance with my civility or behaviour, should they be prepared to entertain such a complaint. I urge you to utilise such a course of action if your problem is genuine and you feel that the project could be improved by such an act. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that, should you be a reasonable person (and I've no reason to assume you're not), there's absolutely no need for me to go down those channels, as any reasonable person would usually respond in a more positive fasion to a small, unofficial note, than to a large, official process. TalkIslander 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway the Hitchhikers quote would be, "Not impossible, just very very improbable" or some such, given it's a reference to the Infinite Improbability Drive. --FOo (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness asside, this isn't a direct enough reference for it to be anything other than assumption. If it is a direct one, then I'm sure it will be pointed out as such soon enough. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Mixed" reviews[edit]

The section that refers to reviews as "mixed" quotes nothing but criticism. I haven't read every single review yet, so I don't know whether it is "mixed" or the selection of quotations made that is misleading, but I certainly think that something is amiss. For what it's worth (so that this comment suggests how to improve the article rather than just complaining), I would either find proof of reviews actually being "mixed" and put it in, or else replace "mixed" with something else. Mind you, perhaps the whole first sentence is a problem and should be avoided. It is a call best left to those who have looked at several of these particular reviews. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. Having read the reviews, I'd say "mixed" describes it quite well. They make some valid points, which the article reflects, such as Jenny being a redshirt (negative) or Donna becoming a better companion (positive). I don't see the section only being negative and I think most people will agree on it. If you read the reviews (a matter of five minutes, it's only three of them), you'll see that it actually reflects them quite well. --SoWhy Talk 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you about the edit of the article to which I was originally referring, which it turns out is also the most recent one you would have seen when you replied, but there appears to have been significant change to it which makes me think it is now more reflective of the relevant reviews. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were no changes in that section between the time you and I posted here and now. It's still the same section that I thought and think of reflecting the reviews quite well. --SoWhy Talk 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set Up For a Spinoff[edit]

I read the Billen quote on Jenny (Doctor Who character) but I was wondering if there been any criticism amongst reliable sources about how this entire episode seemed largely a set up for a new Dr. Who spinoff about Jenny (not necessarily another TV show... possible Big Finnish CDs, books, or comics)? Considering the way many critics mentioned on this page panned it I'd be surprised if somebody didn't bring it up.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been none amongst reliable sources; even if there was, it wouldn't be acceptable as speculation is never allowed, even if it comes from sources that are reliable when they convey FACTS. —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Finish can't use anything from new Who. That means Jenny won't be getting her own audio series. Digifiend (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clone[edit]

There are references in the article to 'cloning'. Jenny is not a clone of the Doctor. The device takes a sample of DNA and extrapolates haploids to produce a unique individual. It does not produce clones at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct but I can't see any mentions in the article...? --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had added it mistakenly to the caption of Jenny. Someone already corrected it. --SoWhy Talk 16:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She is NOT a clone! She IS his SISTER! The Progenation machine takes a DNA sample and seperates it back in to the DNA of the persons parents(mom's egg & dad's sperm) it then combines them into a new person. Your parents make you and your siblings, you and a member of the opposite sex create your sons and daughters. Which means that Jenny is the Doctor's much younger little sister! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qroyd (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how the machine works because it's a fictional device. Trying to figure out how it works is speculation and original research, which is against policy. The only thing that we can do is to summarise the primary source, which says it's his daughter. DonQuixote (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how it works, if you do a DNA sample on her, it will show that she has the same parents as him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qroyd (talk • contribs)

No you don't. If you do a DNA sample on her, it will show whatever the author wants. It's not a real device. The author can include components like magicwandulators that can do whatever the author wants. DonQuixote (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a pretty good idea how it works, actually - the Doctor explains it in the episode. "She's my daughter ... Reproduction from a single organism. Means one parent is biological mother and father. You take a sample of diploid cells, split them into haploids, then recombine them in a different arrangement and grow". Very different from cloning, even on a basic conceptual level. —Flax5 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Terry Nation was still around, he'd tell you I was right. Too bad the writers don't do as much research as they used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qroyd (talk • contribs)

BTTF Reference?[edit]

It seems there have been a lot of comments made both about the music in this episode and external references made in this episode, but I'm going to add one of my own: Is it just me, or does the music very briefly reference the Back to the Future theme song when the Doctor mentions "paradox" at the end of the episode? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just you. Didn't notice that myself, and I own the soundtracks as well as the movies. DonQuixote (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's 7 Reference[edit]

At the very end of the episode, when Jenny is in the shuttle cockpit and has her little speech about running etc., some of the soundtrack cues are very reminiscent of the main theme of the other 1970s Terry Nation sci-fi BBC series. Obviously, I have nothing to offer that would categorically prove this claim. 99.233.136.166 (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Duration of War between humans and Hath/ Cloning[edit]

Is it explained anywhere how this whole colonization, the building of the base and the war could have happened in only 7 days? Are these clones always duplicates of the original or do they start young and fresh? If the second then how come the old general has forgotten all about the actual purpose of the source. And how can they all have forgotten the actual history and started to believe in the legend so quickly - that would only work if every generation was wiped out cleanly and the early/ original ones never talked to the later ones and explained the story. -85.176.255.40 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the Doctor says that the colonisation never happened. The buildings were built for colonisation, but before the colonisation could happen, the war broke out. And yes, the war has only been going 7 days. Apparently there is so much fighting that the soldiers only live, say, a day before dying, which is why no one remembers the start of the war. The old general is probably only a few days old. 99.226.239.5 (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctor's Family[edit]

Susan is stated as last being seen in "The Five Doctors." She was last seen in "Dimensions in Time", though the canonicity of that is questioned (though some accept it because it's the only time the sixth Doctor met the Brigadeer.)

The Doctor doesn't state in "The Tomb of the Cybermen" that his family is all dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moffett & Tennant first meeting?[edit]

Is this episode where Moffett and Tennant first meet IRL? If so, that's pretty cool and maybe worth mention since they're married now and have had a kid together. -- 174.21.83.11 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might just mention that they eventually married and had a daughter. I have a source. Glimmer721 talk 21:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Doctor%27s_Daughter&oldid=1206994993"