Talk:Doctor Who chronology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Edit history
This article is a merger of and , please see their edit histories for earlier edits. Tim! 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Some of these dates are suspicious. Is Logopolis really dateable to the date of transmission? Morwen - Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know. I just merged two lists. If you think a date needs to be changed to something along the lines of: presumed to be.. (date of transmission), then feel free to do so.--Bjwebb (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I love this project. There is so much that can be done with it. I've straightened up the columns so it looks more presentable and changed the notes to footnotes for formatting purposes. --The Core-Man 12:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think that this page should have brief descriptions as to what happened in the episode? It will make the article bigger, but we could eventually break it up into smaller pieces. --The Core-Man 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't the date given for The Impossible Planet something like 43k 2.1 which would make it the year 43,000 AD and it was 2nd January (2.1)?--Alan-WK 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whereabouts in the episode was that mentioned? I'd like to take a look at it again. --The Core-Man 09:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
You hear 43k 2.1 mentioned near the end of the 2nd part of The Impossible Planet when the captain is listing the deceased.--Alan-WK 19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- According to whoniverse.org[1] "The deaths are all dated as 43k2.1. According to Russell T Davies on the commentary track, earlier versions of the script placed the story in the 43rd century." --The Core-Man 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, if it's the 43rd century then the 43 could be the year, k could be the month, 2 could be the day, .1 could be hour. (So it could be 4243 November 2, 1am.) --The Core-Man 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- But, the must be just a date, no time, because BOTH episodes 42k2.1 is mentioned, and this adventure took place well over an hour! --The Core-Man 11:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The 43 could be the century, but if the k was the year we would be stuck at 36 (A-Z, 0-9, assuming that there are no new letters in the English alphabet.) --The Core-Man 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Any other suggestions???? --The Core-Man 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A note for every episode!
Can people who have access to serials try to check them all to find out where these dates come from: and what is said about them in dialogue, if anything? I've done all the ones I have access to (apart from an Unearthly Child). As noted above, I am particularly suspicious about the preciseness of some of the episodes, e.g. Logopolis. Morwen - Talk 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] End of the world short visits
During the opening scene of the end of the world, they make momentary stops in various points in the future, visting amoungst others, the new Roman Empire. Alas, I don't have a recording to hand, does anyone want to fill these in? --Billpg 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- They only mentioned the 22nd century and the New Roman Empire; I've added the latter. --Arctic Gnome 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Satellite 5 or satellite 5?
Is 'satellite 5' capitalised?
- I believe that Satellite 5 should be capitalised. IMHO, it's an actual name of a location, not just a numbered satellite. --The Core-Man 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explanatory Sentences
I question the usefulness of sentences like "Like the real Victorian era." or "Like the real 1980's" Apart from being sentence fragments, what do they mean? If there is a reason for these notes, perhaps a caveat can be added at the start. If nobody posts a reason for them I'm going to delete them all. (At the same time I'll try to add some further pertinent entries) --Bolognaking 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Those sentences are leftover from an article that was merged with this one describing the various eras in Doctor Who. They are most useful for giving an overview of future eras that the Doctor returns to a few times, like Satellite 5 in 200,000-200,100 or the post-Earth times in 5,000,000,000-5,000,000,023. They are also useful for the present times to show the difference between our world and the shows. I say keep them, though they need to be rewritten. --Arctic Gnome 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point about the shows set in the future. For the present and past ones all they seem to say is that the Victorian era is the Victorian era and that people as a rule don't know about "supernatural phenomena" (I think that's the wording) which tells us nothing. What is the "difference between our world and the shows"? Fictitious events take place? Not really earth-shattering for a work of fiction. I'd still like to delete the present and past ones. --Bolognaking 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think for the contemporary ones, and some of the past ones, we should note in what ways the Doctor Who chronology differs from our own. That's the easyest way of discribing each era. --Arctic Gnome 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your point about the shows set in the future. For the present and past ones all they seem to say is that the Victorian era is the Victorian era and that people as a rule don't know about "supernatural phenomena" (I think that's the wording) which tells us nothing. What is the "difference between our world and the shows"? Fictitious events take place? Not really earth-shattering for a work of fiction. I'd still like to delete the present and past ones. --Bolognaking 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Torchwood
Should Torchwood be listed as part of the Doctor Who chronology?Wiki-newbie 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Support
- Support - in the same universe, and as A Girl's Best Friend is there, so should Torchwood. Will (message ♪) 22:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - as per Will. --Arctic Gnome 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - as per the others. Seems pretty obvious, really. Doug A Scott (4 8 15 16 23 42)
- Support - as per the others. Torchwood, IMHO, is canon. 'Nuff Said! Coreman
Oppose
- It is not an "episode" of Doctor Who. Pure and simple. It should not be listed as such, and neither should A Girl's Best Friend for that matter.
- Comment - This is not a list of episodes, this is a chronology. K9 and Co. as well as Torchwood are part of that chronology since they are in the same world. There are also events in the list that were mentioned but never had an episode about them. If we are only listing episodes, than this entire list should be merged into List of Doctor Who serials. I think the best solution is to take out the word "episode" from the headers of the lists. --Arctic Gnome 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More in depth Chronology?
Does anyone think that we should make this a more in depth chronology? (ala Lance Parkins "A History") Should we put brief descriptions of what happened in the story and references to events that occurred off screen? I know that this would make this article go across several pages, but I think that just listing an episode and putting the date there with a footnote just isn't enough. --The Core-Man 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- (From above topic) - This is not a list of episodes, this is a chronology. K9 and Co. as well as Torchwood are part of that chronology since they are in the same world. There are also events in the list that were mentioned but never had an episode about them. If we are only listing episodes, than this entire list should be merged into List of Doctor Who serials. I think the best solution is to take out the word "episode" from the headers of the lists. --Arctic Gnome 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would mildly support the inclusion of spin-offs if their historical contexts are verifiable (and so far they all are). AG raises an important point, however. If this is a chronology, why, for example, do we have sections about episodes with no verifiable date? If we can lump all Torchwood episodes together, why not lump all the UNIT episodes together, put them in the 1960's-1970's section with a footnote and wikilink to the dating controversy? Although I don't think we can do away with references to episodes altogether, perhaps we should be listing events as opposed to episodes. We could, for example say "Daleks land on the Marie Celeste" as our event. The reader may well wonder when we found out about that and therefore we need an episode reference as well. --Bolognaking 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Events should be the main focus of a chronology, but it most cases it would be useful to keep the episode names with their link and years. --Arctic Gnome 20:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would mildly support the inclusion of spin-offs if their historical contexts are verifiable (and so far they all are). AG raises an important point, however. If this is a chronology, why, for example, do we have sections about episodes with no verifiable date? If we can lump all Torchwood episodes together, why not lump all the UNIT episodes together, put them in the 1960's-1970's section with a footnote and wikilink to the dating controversy? Although I don't think we can do away with references to episodes altogether, perhaps we should be listing events as opposed to episodes. We could, for example say "Daleks land on the Marie Celeste" as our event. The reader may well wonder when we found out about that and therefore we need an episode reference as well. --Bolognaking 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- (From above topic) - This is not a list of episodes, this is a chronology. K9 and Co. as well as Torchwood are part of that chronology since they are in the same world. There are also events in the list that were mentioned but never had an episode about them. If we are only listing episodes, than this entire list should be merged into List of Doctor Who serials. I think the best solution is to take out the word "episode" from the headers of the lists. --Arctic Gnome 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] July 20th 1966
I don't know whether it is notable enough to add to this fine (and fun) table that all of you Doctor Who wikipedians have been working on but I have read (in more than one publication - though I can't remember which ones right at the moment) that this day is considered the busiest in the combined history of the Doctor and Earth. As already noted:
- The First Doctor defeats Wotan and the War Machine and says goodbye (though he actually doesn't do so onscreen) to Dodo and Ben and Polly join the crew.
- The Second Doctor foils the plans of the Chameleons and says goodbye to Ben and Polly
- The Tardis is stolen at the start of the events of The Evil of the Daleks.
That leads to my question, is it possible to add episode one of that story to the July 1966 part of the table or are those events not a part of the criteria that have been set up for this table? I just thought that I would ask here on the discussion page since I know that the members of the Doctor Who wikiproject are so dedicated in taking good care of these pages. MarnetteD | Talk 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, heck yeah! I think that every minute detail should be added. If part of a story occurs or mentions a specific date, the story title and episode number should be noted. The Core-Man 20:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
