Talk:Chronology of the Doctor Who universe/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

"Former Minister of Defence, first came to prominence when he shot down the Racnoss"

Oh, OK that explains it, and means we finally have evidence for dating it to 2008. That means the UK has had general elections in three successive years: 2006, 2007 and 2008. 172.213.149.166 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We had it last week, when Martha said "couple of years ago". Will (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Too Much information?

For the recent episodes there is a lot of information under when it takes place, does it need to be stated that certain episode takes place four days before another? If you state the fact it happened in June 2008 thats all that is needed to explain what year and what month it takes place. --Wiggstar69 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The lede says "It is intended roughly to give a description of the extent of the Doctor's time travels and the relevance and place of stories with regards to one another." - which I think that it is relevant that the on-world events happened in the space of four days while with Rose, they took two years. Will (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be mentioned in the list, but it should be stated in the references that the events take place over four days.

StuartDDtalk 21:56 (BST) 25 June 2007

Season 3 contemporary episodes

It is stated in The Sound of Drums, that Saxon has been around for 18 months - since the fall of Harriet Jones. assuming Jones fell in christmas 2006, that places the four episodes in June 2008. I have therefore references them as such. In Love and Monsters, their was a Saxon headline - so presumablly he lost the election in 2007, and won the 2008 election here after shooting the Webster down. It also fits in with the missing poster on Torchwood - if Utopia is at the same time as these episodes, then they would not need to make a poster because he is seen as "wanted" a few days later - but February to June is a much bigger gap. StuartDDtalk 15:59 (BST) 24 June 2007

What if Harriet Jones was still PM for at least another month following Christmas? --77.99.30.226 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I did say "assuming". If she went after Christmas then it would - obviously - place these later.

I'll go along with "summer" in the chronology - but should it be mentioned in the reference that it is June at the earliest? StuartDDtalk 21:55 (BST) 25 June 2007

Sure, fine with me. Sorry, missed the assuming, but the point still stands anyway; that we can't be that definitive. But yeah, a note of June at the earliest seems okay. --77.99.30.226 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edge of Destruction

Why isn't Edge of Destruction shown as being set at (or at least towards) event zero (ie the Big Bang)? Wasn't that the whole point of the story, that the TARDIS was forever going backwards towards the Big Bang, until the Doctor noticed that the TARDIS's button was stuck? The Tribe of Gum 19:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The same reason why we don't say that the TARDIS is going 200k -> 5000 -> 2006 in the CIN special: the adventure is set in full in the TARDIS. Will (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is. But the crux of the story is that they are going back in time? The Tribe of Gum 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLC

Where is it?!?!? The Tribe of Gum 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is at the top of the page. Will (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

October

The third series episodes are placed in October due to this reference "A poster in Royal Hope hospital and a noticeboard in another hospital indicate the stories take place in October."
Is this real evidence? and if so explain and/or back it up --Wiggstar69 12:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[1]
[2]
Will (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Very good, just checking.--Wiggstar69 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

re: circa 5 billion

The Ninth Doctor DOES start "five billion years in your future", so it would be cicra 5 bil. However, in New Earth, the Tenth Doctor goes "So, the year five billion Earth blows up". From that, could it be established that End of the World was *exactly* the year five billion? Or was the Doctor just being vague/colloquial? Seriphyn 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vague, I think. I don't think he'd say "The year 4,999,999,982". It's like The Mysterious Planet, which is about 2 million years in Peri's (1985) future. Will (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Last of the time lords

Should we put "alternate timeline" for Last of the timelords - as the doctor stated that the year never happened? StuartDDtalk 21:50 (BST) 30 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 20:05, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Whoever removed large chunks of historic information...don't do it again

I, for one, put in those descriptions of those eras myself, you know, to like inform people of what is going on in the Whoniverse at that time. Don't remove it...I mean why remove it? Don't people want to know how life is like in the year 5 billion in the Whoniverse? Seriphyn 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was cutting down on the plot-element stuff. Cats and trees, though, is information that should be includeable. Apologies. Will (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Yeah, I agree. Plot stuff...maybe not...historical stuff...important to a timeline Seriphyn 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I put in stuff...namely early and late 21st century to give readers a brief idea of how the world is like at that time. Just brief...uh...dunno if I'm doing it right. Would like to do that but...I haven't really actually watched the original series...I think it would be cool if we had a line or two in each period that currently has nothing. To inform people stuff...man I'm tired. Seriphyn 20:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I liked the other stuff now all the future stuff is only in one big bulk!82.20.82.146 01:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Family of Blood - final scene

Why has the Remembrance Day service in The Family of Blood been dated to 2008 rather than the 1990s, where it was previously? The Service Book used is one that was replaced in the late 1990s, and if it were set in 2008 the old man with the watch would have to be pushing 110 years old - he certainly doesn't look like he's 110.

Where is the evidence that this scene is set "in Martha's time"? There is none. It should be placed in the 1990s (not earlier, because of the presence of a female vicar). Malcolm Starkey 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Martha's blog (which, even as a myspace, gets the level of reliable secondary source). Will (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Says who? Both blogs and Myspace are explicitly unreliable sources. Martha's Myspace blog is written by an anonymous author, and should not be taken as a statement of intention on the part of either Paul Cornell or the Doctor Who production team. Besides, the entry in question is dated "03 Jun 2007", so why does that position the scene in November 2008? It doesn't.
All the internal evidence from the broadcast programme (the only reliable and canonical source) indicates that the scene is set in the 1990s. The (female) vicar is using an Alternative Service Book, which were replaced with Common Worship in 2000. Therefore it is set between 1994 and 1999. To suggest that the Alternative Service Book continued to be used until 2008 in the Doctor Who universe is fanwank and original research.
Besides, look at the number of World War I veterans who are still alive in 2007. There are only three alive in the whole of Britain. For Latimer to be at the Remembrance Day service in 2008, he would also have to be Britain's oldest man. There is no reason to believe that this is the case; a 1990s setting is what the televised episode strongly indicates. Malcolm Starkey 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Martha's blog is commissioned by the production team, therefore we can take statements (but not the dates on the top of the blog posts) from the site the same as we can do for Torchwood's site. We're not given Latimer's age either - if we assume he was 15 during The Family of Blood, he'd still be younger than Allingam. Also, the Whoniverse diverges from the real universe in several respects:
  1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows isn't released until late 2008/early 2009 at the latest.
  2. Power change within the government several times over a few years.
  3. The Empire State Building is incomplete in November 1930.
Therefore, there is a possibility that the ASB is still used past 2000 in the Whoniverse. Placing it before 2000 because we stopped using it is synthesis. There are no restrictions to the use of semi-canonical sources in articles - otherwise we'd not have articles on most of the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Will (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be quite happy if there wasn't a single article on the Star Wars Expanded Universe, but that's just a matter of taste.
The important thing is that using a Myspace page as a source directly contravenes Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter who it was commissioned by - it is an unreliable source, as per WP:URS. This is only compounded when the information on the blog is used selectively (ie ignoring the dates given on the postings).
The assumption that Martha comes from 2008 is based on references within the programme, and by your ownm admission this overrides the dates given on the blog. By the same token, the evidence within the programme is that the Remembrance Day service takes place during the 1990s, and this, likewise, should take priority over a source that is not admissible under Wikipedia policy. Malcolm Starkey 15:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it specifically stated that it takes place during the 1990s? No. However, Martha's blog does say, and I quote:

In 1913, seeing Tim as a young kid then seeing him again in 2008 as an old man.

There is no policy that explicitly forbids any use of a myspace of a source. It's discouraged, but all policies and guidelines allow for the common exception. Like this. The blog is an official BBC tie-in site, therefore can be used for dating. The reason they use the 2007 dates is simply so that a reader can read it in order, instead of the "Gridlock" post (5bn) being at the top and "The Shakespeare Code" (1599) post at the bottom (I could make a fanwankish explanation about the TARDIS' systems locking onto Myspace's databases Spring 2007 and posting them under that date, but see Occam's razor.)
Again, I direct you to read about synthesis of reliable sources to advance an argument. While she is using the ASB (I don't deny that), it's mixing in-world information with out-of-world information. I've already given three examples of divergence from our universe from the third series alone. It is entirely possibly that the use of the ASB instead of Common Worship is the fourth. Will (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(Removed indent) At least one of these so-called examples of divergence is synthesis as well. The claim about the release date of the Harry Potter novel is not supported by any on-screen information; it is fanwank conjecture, designed to iron out continuity problems caused by sloppy script-editing. It, like the suggestion about the ASB's continued use, is pure original research. Presumably, dating The Time Meddler to September 1066 is "mixing in-world information with out-of-world information", too. After all, no-one explicitly says the date on-screen, do they? Maybe the Battle of Hastings happened on a very slightly different date for no reason at all. If you have differing sources that suggest different dates - as you clearly do on this whole mini-UNIT Dating Controversy of Martha's personal timeline - you cannot date the scene. Fanwank about late release of Harry Potter books and ongoing use of a discontinued service book is precisely the kind of original research that you object to so much. Malcolm Starkey 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. Will (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is getting tedious. You talk about Occam's Razor, and yet you refuse to accept that this business with Harry Potter and the ASB runs completely contrary to what Occam's Razor says.
Far too much of this page is WP:OR, and I stand by my original statement that a Myspace blog is not a citable resource. Do what you want, though. Malcolm Starkey 17:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You haven't told me why this Myspace blog is unreliable, though. Will (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a chronology of the Doctor Who television series. It does not include novels, audios, comics, annuals, Sky Ray ice lollies or internet-only adventures. For that reason, it should not use Myspace accounts that have been set up purely as promotional gimmicks. Myspace is not owned by, published by or in any other way affiliated to the BBC, despite what you have put in your citation.
The fact that Martha's blog was commissioned by the production team is irrelevant. Dimensions in Time was commissioned by the (then) production team, too, but it does not appear on the list as it is not generally accepted as canonical.
Evidence taken from sources other than screened television episodes should not be used on this list. You may have a personal chronology of your own that incorporates information from "Martha's" Myspace site, but this is not the place for it. Malcolm Starkey 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You haven't said why it's unreliable. Will (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I did - the television programme is the only official, canonical source. And, in the words of Tony Blair, that is that. The end. Malcolm Starkey 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Canonicity is not a bright line rule. For example, The Monsters Inside, which is a tie-in novel, has a definite standing in canon. A source's canonicity does not equal its reliability. Will (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Second this. This is one of those arguments that should make you think "Maybe I'm in the wrong here." Production materials count as reliable sources. Canon doesn't factor in. Simply put, blog says 2008, then it's 2008. After all "Martha" wrote it, and who better than her to tell you dates. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The web site tie-ins aren't production materials. Mark H Wilkinson 08:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. It's late where I am and I just felt like posting an agreement. Whatever the proper term, his point stands. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Will has yet to demonstrate reliability of the websites when it comes to the television show, which, until he does so, doesn't even prop up his point, let alone make it stand on its own two feet.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure this whole article isn't flawed on a conceptual level. It's an attempt to present an authoritative chronology of the Doctor Who universe, but anyone with experience of these matters would know that any such thing may well not be possible on the basis of current evidence, given the lack of cohesion between differing production teams and writers over forty years of television and spin-off media; ultimately, opinion and speculation is involved. It's a laudible aim for a fan site, or a nice little earner for Lance Parkin, but not exactly the business of an encyclopedia. Mark H Wilkinson 08:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A reliable source has editorial oversight and fact-checking, which the sites presumably do (yes, I know that there have been slip-ups on the TW site, but it always makes it clear that it's after the Battle of Canary Wharf). However, the sources do blur the line between primary and secondary. Remember, though - canonicity =/= reliability. Will (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, you meen to tell me that if RTD went up to you and said "this is wrong", thats not reliable, it IS reliable! Writen BY the production team! For the episode!!!

I don't know what "writen" means, but if you're suggesting it's "written" by the production team, then you're wrong. It may be the case that it's commissioned by the production team, perhaps, but that is not the same thing. As Mark H Wilkinson points out above, the web site tie-ins aren't production materials. It's all very well to say that the Myspace page "presumably" has editorial oversight and fact-checking, but "presumably" is just not good enough.
And if RTD came up to me and managed to avoid being punched in the face long enough to tell me something about the programme, then by definition that is not a citable source. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.
This is my last word on the matter. You can do what you like with this page, but as far as I am concerned it is a load of original research Malcolm Starkey 10:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I find Malcolm Starkey's comments incredably annoying, for one the comments made on the 'discussion' page shouldn't have to be splel checked, the reason for this page is to improve the artical - not improve our English. He almost tries to sound cool by being sarcastic and thinking about what his going to say very carfully before he says it, making sure he makes 'Will' sound as stupid as possible. Remember, all of the people editing this artical including me are very very sad, just look at the title of this page, does it sound like anyone should care? Yet I do, and anyone reading this obviously does.
Although I hate this kids guts, and feel that 'Will' is an outstanding contributor to the Doctor Who pages, I have to say, Malcolms right, using the MySpace sight as a source is flawed, nothing on that site can be taken as cannon, whether its set up by the BBC or not, (and I'm not sure that it is, Source?) websites are not suppost to be taken as cannon, its the same with novels. Also the female vicar and the book she is holding, (even though its set in the whoniverse, not the real one) is more reliable evidence, it gives it a date in the 90's that is onscreen, far more reliable then what could be some over eager Doctor Who fan setting up an account with far too much time on their hands.--Wiggstar69 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote makes no sense to me

Why is 'Everything Changes' (the Torchwood episode) given as a cite for the date of 'The Doctor Dances' (footnote 23 at this time)? I don't want to touch things, because I don't know enough about the ins and outs, but that cite needs a little more information if its good, or to be corrected if it isn't (it caught my attention because I was pretty sure that Jack had been being 'Jack' for a fair bit more than a fortnight when he met the Doctor and Rose) --Thespian 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Gwen's boss says that there was only ever one Cpt. Jack Harkness, an American, who failed to report for duty on Jan 21, 1941. Will (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Which was the day after the dance where we see the original on TW, though. Jack admitted that he scavved the name from a list of missing people without having met the owner, and by the time The Doctor Dances, has been using it for a while. So the timing seems off on this. But thanks for explaining; that footnote might be more explanatory with the quotes, though I've archived my torchwood for the space for now. --Thespian 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I myself don't even try to think of the logistics of several Jacks running around the UK during the Blitz. Will (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've now tweaked the reference to explain the date. StuartDD 14:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

End scenes

I noticed that Last of the Time Lords (end scene) is listed in the unknown year section above Voyage of the Damned. I don't think we should credit scenes which link stories together. Several serials/ episodes link together with scenes leading to other time zones (Unearthly child ending is at the time of The Daleks, which leads onto The Edge of Destruction etc). The article would be far too long if we put in all the linking scenes - and I don't think Last of the Time Lords has any special reason to be placed when others are not. I have therefore removed it from the unknown year section. StuartDD 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's best to remove Voyage of the Damned until airdate too. Will (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

42 in 42nd century?

What is the source for 42 being in the 42nd century. I don't remember the date being given. StuartDD ( t • c ) 11:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't inside the programme, but before the episode was aired RTD did mention it, personly I can't remember where to find this, but its there.--Wiggstar69 12:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't find anything regarding to the 42nd century, so I've removed it for now and placed it in the 'Unknown year' section. — Edokter • Talk • 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
IIRC, it was in the DWM where RTD was synopsising each episode in one paragraph. Will (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you know which issue and page, we can cite it. — Edokter • Talk • 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mawdryn Undead

This has two listings in the table, without any "some scenes" or similar. Can someone who has watched this please put something like this in. Also, since that started the whole Unit dating thing, should it be under that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StuartDD (talk • contribs) 11:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put "partly" on the 1977 entry. But I still say it should be in the Unit section. StuartDD ( t • c ) 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Jane

I don't buy the dating for The Sarah Jane Adventures. "Revenge of the Slitheen" clearly occurs in August, as a new school year is starting, so there's no way "Invasion of the Bane" occurs in January, as "Slitheen" is not too much later: Luke and Sarah Jane are stilling getting used to their new arrangement, Maria hasn't started at her new school yet, Maria and her dad are still settling in, and so on. In which case, I would suggest July for "Bane", ignoring the alleged alarm clock altogether. And in that case, I would bump it back to 2008, which fits with the "eighteen months" statement and keep's TSJA's present-day the same as those of Doctor Who and Torchwood. --208.60.60.254 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

September. Most schools in England start on the first Tuesday/Wednesday of September. We can't say "July", as that's OR. January is verified, though. Will (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't ignore the alarm clock, setting it in Jan 2009 and just because it 'seems' to take place not so far after "Invasion of the Bane" doesn't meen it does.--Wiggstar69 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It was pointed out on a forum that the alarm clock may have reset during the move, and not been corected yet. StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You're telling me that in eight months, Maria somehow didn't go to school? Her father didn't paint the house? Sarah Jane isn't remotely used to having a child? Give me a break. This whole thing is OR. --208.60.60.254 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
January 11 was given in Invasion of the Bane. Logic (as noted above) dictates otherwise. As I stated previously, the alarm clock may have reset and not been corrected. For the sake of logic, it should be changed. The only problem is, change it to what? StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say August 2008. Fits nicely with the eighteen months and before Saxon (after Saxon would, admittedly, cause plotholes the size of Mars). Interestingly, if we move IOTB to August 2009, the eighteen months would fit very nicely with the Large Hadron Collider experiments (at the time of airing, it was to start operation this November). Will (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should put "Late August 2009" for Invasion of the bane just now (It was only a few weeks till school started), and then we can change it to 2008 if we need to. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"Late August 2009" would be a bad time to set it, you either take the alarm clock evidence or you leave it, you can't used part of it.--Wiggstar69 10:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't using the alarm clock. It's either 2008 or 2009 - I'm suggesting using 2009 until we get different information, as that is far enough after Saxon. 2008 makes it very close to Saxon (October). StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we'll have it like that until we get any more information, although I would like to point out that one of my freinds goes to a school who's school year starts in February instead of September. --Wiggstar69 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the new technology unit went up over the summer (Revenge of the Slitheen). StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

All of these comments have been read, and I like them. Kudos to the mentioning of that Hadron thing. I didn't follow your link, but I'm betting it leads to that Switzerland/Big Bang experiment, right? The moment I heard that on the News, I reckoned it was what K-9 is fixing. Anyway, AFAIC, although Maria and Luke seem to have done very little since IOTB, I'm still of the opinion that ROTS occurs in Early September 2009. Even despite arguments against that, the radio-announcer seemed to have confidence in the P.M., and by either 2008 or 2009, few had confidence in Harriet Jones, and evidence suggests Harold Saxon never was P.M.. That's my take on it, anyway [User: Stripey].

Saxon was still the Prime Minister for all of thirty-six hours. Will (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was this reverted?

Why was my edit for "Talons of Weng Chiang" reverted? The only explanation given was "rvt speculation/OR", but it wasn't speculation or OR. The "February 1892" magazine date is clearly visible on screen in the episode (and even mentioned in the DVD's production text subititles), and I clearly cited authorised spin-off sources for the 1889 date. If that's "speculation/OR" then most of your dates for New Who are "speculation/OR" too! 79.73.43.249 18:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The line suggested to me a degree of speculation, so I reverted. Reading it again, a teak would have been better. I suggest something like "A magazine gives the date "February 1892", but Lance Parkin's A History of the Universe dates it to 1889, which is aslo used in the novels The Shadow of Weng-Chiang and The Bodysnatchers"

It's less confusing, and less bulky. StuartDD contributions 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, " on the grounds that in doesn't contain a reference to Jack the Ripper being in Canada, and Jack the Ripper wasn't Prince Eddy, who wasn't in Canada in 1889, so that must be when the story's set! " - doesn't make any sense at all. StuartDD contributions 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)