From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	EastEnders Portal This article is part of WikiProject EastEnders, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Doctor Who Portal 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.

I am not sure whether the reference to the Pulfrich effect is entirely correct as the Daily Telegraph of 27th October 1993 (Media correspondent Jane Thynne) says "using new technology devised by Mr Terry Beard, the Californian scientist who perfected the DTS digital sound system for ...Jurassic Park, viewers without the glasses will be able to see a normal 2-D picture". Any comments? DavidFarmbrough 10:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is. The Pulfrich Effect has been observed since the 1920s. Inventors like Terry Beard exploited the effect in the 1990s. See Optimization of simulated 3-D effect through camera technique, United States Patent 5282029 under "Prior Art". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. There appears to be nothing on Wikipedia about Terry Beard at the time of writing, so in view of this and his work for DTS, perhaps a Terry Beard article is warranted. DavidFarmbrough 10:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canonicity

Regarding this sentence

Ultimately, the canonicity of this spin-off within the Doctor Who universe is unclear.

Yeah, but why does no-one worry about its canonicity within the EastEnders universe? I'll bet half of the EastEnders characters that appear in the "20 years in the future" segment (now more like 8) have been inadvertantly killed off by scriptwriters with a life who don't know every detail of the series... but I don't see any EastEnders fans chiming in with discussion about a spin-off novel that sees Arthur Fowler come back to life in 2009 as a zombie. Or whatever.

And assuming they're both canon, doesn't this imply that EastEnders and the Doctor Who universe are one and the same, and that Wendy Richards/Pauline Fowler is a new Doctor Who character?

Actually, going by the "soapiness" of some parts of the new series, I believe that this is really the case. :)

Fourohfour 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a debate on its 'Stenders canonity in the DWM editorial column some time ago (following an earlier discussion of its Doctor Who status). The editor insisted it was (mostly due to predicting Arthur's death), and the designer came up with examples of its continuity being all over the place. It was quite funny.

As to whether Doctor Who and EastEnders take place in the same universe, I think this is either going to be confirmed or denied in the finale of the current series... Daibhid C 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Beale died in 2006. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, how can anyone even think this was canonical? Has anyone ever actually met someone who genuinely thinks this is a real episode of the series, because I don't think such a person exists, whatever Nathan Turner's intentions might have been before this was made. There wasn't any story to DIT, it was just a load of nonsensical cameos with a spinning camera to show off the 3D effect, and to top it all the viewers at home actually voted on the ending rather than the scriptwriters. The Fifth Doctor is stopped from escaping some monster in the park by three foot tall RAILINGS, he even says "Oh no! Railings!" and just stops. Does anyone think that Jim'll Fix It sketch was canonical? Or Jon Pertwee's appearance as the Doctor on Noel's House Party to promote DIT? Or that Blue Peter clip with the War Machine in it? Or the adverts for Prime computers? Or Curse Of The Fatal Death? All those have just as much claim to be canon as Dimensions In Time, but who would be sad enough to try and invent stupid reasons for them to be part of the whole "saga". The only reason anyone wanted this to be part of the real series was because there wasn't any new Who material being made back then at all, or even any prospect of new material being made. Fans really wanted Dark Dimensions and just couldn't accept that the series was totally dead at that point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs) 11:43, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

Most of what you say is true — but I have in fact met Doctor Who fans (on the Outpost Gallifrey forums) who have argued that the story is canonical. Crap, but canonical. Since there is no official authority declaring what is and isn't canon in Doctor Who, at Wikipedia we can't make absolute declarations on the subject. Even though the vast majority of Doctor Who fans would be happy to pretend that "Dimensions in Time" never happened, it would be original research to make a bald statement of its non-canonicity in the article. The current wording is about as far as we can push it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =need clearing up...

'The Rani makes the mistake of capturing one companion while she is in the form of Romana' ...what the hell does that line from the article mean?That the rani had roman's form or...?

No, it was just the writer's silly way of saying "Well, since there was already a Time Lord in the computer, adding Romana (which was a mistake, The Rani meant to take a human) then, for some strange reason, The Doctor could overload the computer. Don't try to make sense of it all!--151.203.162.36 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)