Talk:Doctor Who (series 4)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
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.
List This article has been rated as List-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Davros

In a CBBC article, it said that there was a trailer and it said 'The main enemy looked like the bottom half was a dalek and the top looked like a human figure' Could it be mentioned in this article that this is possibly Davros? LuGiADude (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) PS Here's the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7320000/newsid_7325700/7325783.stm LuGiADude (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Who they'll be fighting is still a mystery, but the person who might be the main villain was shown partly hidden in shadow. The villain had the bottom half of a Dalek, while its top half looked like it could be human." To me it sounds like Davros too; but that is speculation and wikipedia tries hard to avoid that. We can discuss on talk pages but the article cannot include it until a reliable source can be quoted. There are plenty of blogs and other websites that welcome speculation but wikipedia is not one of them. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's another half-human, half-Dalek, which strikes me as deliberate. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre, it doesn't say 'half human half dalek', it says 'the bottom half of a Dalek, while its top half looked like it could be human..'

Does Dalek Sec have the bottom half of a Dalek? No, he has humanoid legs. In fact for Sec it's the other way round, bottom half of a HUMANOID, TOP half of a Dalek. I know there is a chance this isn't Davros, so I'm not saying 'this DOES indicate the return of davros', I'm saying 'it MAY indicate the return of Davros'. So why the constant reverts?LuGiADude (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"May" doesn't cut it. It has to be "will". Saying "humanoid" is better than saying "the top half looked like it could be human": the suffix "-oid" means "similar to" (OED). Sceptre (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it may indicate Davros, it may be a red herring; I doubt it is Dalek Sec... the point is we don't know and have no source other than your own, my own and ano's own speculation. This is an encyclopedia, show me another one that includes un-cited speculation. I also agree with Sceptre that humanoid is a suitable short form for looked like it could be human. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying :( I'm saying that it doesn't just say 'half dalek half human' - which could mean a human covered in Dalek plates (pfft) it actually says the top half is humanoid and the bottom half is... er, dalekoid. Which isn't made clear by the ambiguous 'half human half dalek' Sorry if I'm being a bit picky... LuGiADude (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not picky at all. I have changed the words. Hope all can agree that this is a better fit. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
well, i think it is. Having said that, it feels a little long. Apart from a direct quotation, I have no suggested improvement. It's probably fine staying as it is. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Can people stop changing it back to HALF DALEK HALF HUMANOID, or whatever, like I said IT'S TOO AMBIGUOUS. Which half is Dalek? Not mentioned. Saying THE TOP HALF IS HUMANOID does show which half. For God's sake. LuGiADude (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Have another look. Since I changed the words to say "the lower half Dalek and the upper half humanoid" on 10 April, the words have not been altered. Please do not let this get to you, it is only Doctor Who. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry lol I have Firefox which saved sessions ;) And on one tab was Doctor Who (series 4) which had the version which said 'half dalek half humanoid' :P Anyway I agree that the choice of words is perfect :) LuGiADude (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is only speculation but I was on http://www.sylvestermccoy.com/newdoctorwho/ and it said this: The Doctor finds out about the messages from Rose but can't do anything about it when suddenly the alternate reality holding Mickey, Jackie and Rose collapses, sending them back to their original universe.

Confirmed that this final story will feature Rose, Mickey, Pete, Jackie, Sarah Jane, Captain Jack, Martha Jones and K9 as well as Donna and the Doctor. It'll also feature Davros played by Julian Bleach. It is likely to feature Sontarans and Daleks in a war as well as other aliens in a final gobsmacking battle.

Davros has been located by Caan and he is helping the Dalek to create a new race of Daleks. In a shock development in the final episode, a Dalek casing opens to reveal Harriet Jones, played by Penelope Wilton, the mother of all the new Daleks.

The Daleks have enslaved 21st century London, but which London?

Rumoured to feature the Torchwood team too as well as the newly created daughter of the Doctor.

It's also possible the Master will be back in this episode, manipulating everything from behind the scenes.

Somewhere in this story, the Doctor and co travel to an alternate future with the Daleks running the world and greenhouse gases at an all time high.

This would also be story number 200 and worth a celebration in itself.

The final scenes involve the Doctor being wounded in a freak explosion which splits him into two Doctors and Sarah, Jack, Martha, Rose and Donna trying to save him.

This is believed to be a crash and burn story which wipes out almost anything that Russell T Davies has had a hand in creating in the past few years so that the new producer can start with a clean slate, so to speak

So the description of the villain (top half human, bottom half Dalek) fits the rumour that Harriet Jones will become the mother of all the new Daleks. Sounds weird but the episode reported that Episode 6 would be about the doctor's daughter before most other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.50.171 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but that sounds a bit fishy... There's no way they could fit all that into two episodes, and Russell T Davies specifically stated that he had no plans to bring back the Master anytime soon. Ilikefood (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's that Sylvester McCoy site? You can absolutely ignore everything it says; that site has a reputation for taking absolutely every rumour, mixed up with a good measure of its own speculation, and presenting it as confirmed fact. You literally only have to look at the page linked to there to see that the second half of the series is entirely made-up, they've got their own ideas for the specials which have no basis in reality, and if you just look at their entry for Voyage of the Damned on the series 3 page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.156.205 (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's seen the mid-series 4 trailer on the BBC Website? Now, its obvious Davros is back because why would they be hiding the top half of a normal Dalek? At least put it looks like davros is returning, because, come on, it looks that way, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carta025 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hey. I've redirected all of the episodes not covered by DWM yet (basically, 4.6, then 4.8 through 4.13), because at the moment, they are just cast lists with a soap-line synopsis. DWM not covering the episode makes the amount of source material nearly non-existant, so we have 10 one-line articles sitting around for 2-11 weeks. (By the way, when I'm saying "covered", I'm counting Script Doctors, in case anyone wants to have a go at doing SITL/FOTD) It also makes the amount of speculation jump up manyfold - there were all five companions coming back listed in the infobox for "Journey's End". Sceptre (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a handful of these - the return of Rose in Turn Left and the notes about Troughton and Davidson's daughter in those episodes seem to me significant information that warrants the existence of the stub. My logic here is, essentially, that there is no doubt that we will eventually have full articles on these episodes, so there is no harm in starting them as soon as we have verifiable out-of-universe information to add. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Unlike a related article, this one has hardly anybody adding unsourced stuff. It's basically all Lugiadude (however many capitals he wants, sorry, I haven't memorised where they are). I don't want to be personal, but I think it would be better to block one user from editing (albeit briefly) than to add FULL protection to the article as has been done here. That means only administrators can edit! How many Doctor Who loving administrators are there? As far as I understand it, of the millions of Wikipedia editors, only about 2,000 are administrators at all. Now, both options really need a timeframe. thus, on anotehr note, if we are going to keep full protection, I'd like to know exactly how long it's going to last. I'm pretty sure that the aforesaid article has only ever needed partial protection. I just think that, when your problem is mainly a single registered non-administrator, there are smarter tactics than full protection. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. The problem was one user (a valid registered one at that) who mistakenly wants to include speculation. I have not checked but I suspect he is new to wikipedia. He will agree that speculation does not belong in articles and that wikipedia is built on valid citation of reliable sources. He should be encouraged to debate points on the talk pages and continue to contribute referenced material on article pages. If he were to continue pushing unsubstantiated speculation in articles he would then deserve a ban. We need to include and educate, not become over protective of a well monitored page. I would also encourage 90.206.183.218 to register as he/she seems to have some useful points to make and they come better from a registered user than an IP address, or did he/she just forget to login? --Brian R Hunter (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
He, by the way. I'm not registered. I have considered the matter a fair bit, but I'd rather not register to be perfectly honest. Just to add to what I said before, full protection means that every single time another guest star gets announced, or we wonder which episodes ought to have redirects, or we want to tidy up a quotation, choice of citation or description of it, or add another, ... Well, there's still plenty of scope for editing the article. Should every single one require a discussion on the talk page of the article? 90.206.183.218 (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I respect your wish for anonymity and agree with your comments on protection; freezing the article seems unwarranted. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
i've just checked Stifle's user talk page. His/her policy on stuff s/he protected being unproteceted is that s/he won't object, but will leave it to those who have the power to do it to do it themselves. That sounds like s/he isn't that easy to persuade to do it themselves though, i.e. another administrator would have to do it. If I remember correctly, Edokter made the first post-protection edit, but clearly had no intention of cancelling the protection. Perhaps I should bring to Edokter's attention our concerns on the Edokter user talk page rather than just discussing the matter here. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) If there is a weight of opinion towards a consensus: I agree, the protection seems unwarranted. In fact, I thought it was generally policy not to full-protect articles if at all possible, and so far as I can see it didn't really meet the criteria at WP:PROT. Semi protection, maybe. Stephenb (Talk) 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Stephenb. The trouble is we need an admin. Any suggestions on who? 90.206.183.218 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to Zzuuzz.90.206.183.218 (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the first post, I'm not sure what to think of. None of my stuff is unsourced. All I've added is that the main antagonist has the lower half of a Dalek and the upper half of a humanoid. Which IS sourced by a certain CBBC article (which is obviously official). I don't see the problem with what I've been adding. And a ban is most certainly not needed - like I said, all things I've added have been sourced LuGiADude (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that I supported a ban on you, just that I did not support full page protection over a content dispute. The problem people had was your adding of possibly indicating the return of Davros, which although quite likely, (in my opinion), was unsourced. The other part of your change is what we have ended up with and I hope you can agree with the choice of words. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add also that my ban suggestion was not only just an example of a preferable approach to full protection, but also would have been intended only as specific to this one article, preferably briefly (not that I could have set the terms, obviously). With your more recenta additions to the discussion on this talk page, you have demonstrated nothing like that will be needed now anyway. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Running Themes/References

I know it's a bit early, but already in each of the two episodes that have been shown, we've had references to the Shadow Proclamation, Venus (as a planet in episode one, the god in episode two), and to alien homeworlds mysteriously going missing. Is it worth creating a section on running references? Kelvingreen (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion: wait to see which of these also occurs in the next episode, then summarise these references' occurrences, not to mention anything that might be found to occur in episodes 2/3 but not 1. Say Venus appears next time but a lost planet does not - point that out too! Thus, I would bring it up in the article, but not during this week. Admittedly the "wait a week" option is quite boring, but anyway that's what I would do. 90.206.183.218 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree; a this early stage, the repeated references could be coincidences. I doubt it, but it's best to wait. I just wanted to start people thinking about it now, so we can all keep our eyes out in coming weeks. Kelvingreen (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking along similar lines; apparently the Medusa Cascade references are part of it too, (The Master referred to it at some point,) but since we still don't know what the hell the Medusa Cascade is, that doesn't really help. I thought for a while that it could be related to the oracles' being turned to stone in Fires of Pompeii, but I think I'd be clutching at straws. Radical AdZ (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice any references to Venus or to missing planets in episode 3. The Ood's final comments to the Doctor (that his song may soon be coming to an end) sound portentous, especially in the context of the final episode of the series (Journey's End).

Also, there is a second mention of how strange it is that all of the bees are going missing...86.132.185.122 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Problem with the table under Production section

There#'s a problem with the table under the Production section - the episodes are in the wrong order, I don';t yet know how to fix wiki tables, so if someone else could take care of it? Thanks 03swalker (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That is because they are sorted by the order they were produced, not the order they will be broadcast. — Edokter • Talk • 19:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cybermen in 2008 Christmas Special

I was looking at Outpost Gallifrey when I found a link to http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/swanews/display.var.2188951.0.cybermen_invade_newport.php It says that the Cybermen are in the special and filming took place at St Woolos cementary in Newport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.50.171 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode ordering

What's with the episode ordering on this page? They're out of broadcast order; "Voyage of the Damned" should be first, then "Partners in Crime", etc. fraggle (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the production section? It's ordered by date of production. Sceptre (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation error

The description for The Poison Sky says "Sontaran's" in a context where there should be no apostrophe. Normally I'd fix it, but someone decided we need to stop unregistered people from replacing TBA with War on Skaro. Sadly someone who was registered then did the same thing, but never mind. I'm not here to question protection policy. I just wanted to point out that the apostrophe shouldn't be there. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to fix

As it's locked I can't do it. Please link the "Voyage of the Damned" episode to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned_(Doctor_Who) and not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Unicorn and the Wasp

Where does this title come from? Todays episode was called "Nemesis" MaKamitt 23:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • never mind, seems to be mistitling on iPlayer that had me thinking the title was Nemesis MaKamitt 00:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Confidential for The Unicorn and the Wasp was called "Nemesis". --SoWhy Talk 14:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the description for that episode, as it was previously blank. Digifiend (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4x12 - TBA

Now that we have 7 episodes already, I think there must be a way to find out what episode 4x12 will be called. TVRage lists it as "War on Skaro" but I know that that's not an acceptable source. I wonder though where they got that from... --SoWhy Talk 14:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We simply won't know until the BBC announces it. — Edokter • Talk • 14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Which should be only two more days. Sceptre (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FotD date

This BBC page confirms the date as 7 June, and the articles for that episode and serials in general already have it cited. Someone who is registered will have to add it here though. Just out of curiosity, what was the reason for semi-protection this time? Probably edits over the episode so many people think they can name. 90.212.113.242 (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Edokter • Talk • 13:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's semi-protected until July 1st, by which time we should know the title of episode 12 and people can stop adding unsourced drivel such as "The Stolen Earth" and "War on Skaro". —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Stolen Earth? That's a new one. The Stolen Planet was a rumoured name for the following episode. July 1st, eh? This talk page won't be gathering dust! It's a good idea though. 90.212.113.242 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 12 will have been broadcast by then, if 11 is on June 21st, 12 should be on June 28th - unless football gets in the way... Digifiend (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mid Series 4 Trailer

Shall we add anything about the trailer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carta025 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The half-Dalek half-humanoid foe put in an appearance. That's probably relevant, although it's actually kinda hard to tell the top half is humanoid... I'm sure it is, but maybe the press were aware of Davros and jumped to conclusions. Can probably get better references for details of upcoming episodes, but it'd probably count as original research to infer which episode each part comes from. The stars going out is new, though. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, close analysis shows that there's a black rectangle over the top-half, disguised as smoke, so we'll never be able to tell. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the reference to the figure be reinstated, though? It was removed on the basis that it was "speculative" and the reference was a video only watchable in the U.K., but the section removed also included a non-speculative section with a link that was neither a video nor U.K.-only. Link to the edit in question: [1] 86.136.156.205 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air dates for episodes 10/11

Doctor Who Magazine issue 398 gives the obvious dates of June 14 and 21, according to Sceptre, who has added this information to the article List of Doctor Who serials. These dates have also been added to the articles for the relevant episodes. I think they should also be added here. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Even more sources of air dates

1 2 These links (bizarrely one uses an extra underscore in its URL) are BBC press releases confirming the airdates of episodes 10 and 11 to be June 14 and 21. I think on this basis these dates should now be added. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good links, I will add them. --SoWhy Talk 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)