Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 1

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.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Archived discussions for Doctor Who. The edit history for these discussions can be found there.

Contents

Subpages considered harmful?

Shouldn't the various artifacts, characters, and creatures unique to the Doctor Who world be in subpages? As Doctor Who/Daleks?

I think Larry is trying to get away from sub-pages and although initially I couldn't see what he was going on about, I had a moment of clarity when I realised that it would make referencing in future quite difficult. I think we are all really waiting for the bracketed solution to Wiki where we can reference by topic.... sjc

Longest-running?

The show is described as "the longest-running television science fiction series ever". While this is undoubtably true, I usually hear it referenced without the "science fiction" clarification. Are there in fact *ANY* TV shows that are longer running?

Yes. The longest running show is "Meet the Press", which has been on the air since 1948. Mr. Rogers ran for 34 years before he hung up his sweater. I think at least one soap opera has been on since the 1950s. --Belltower

And Coronation Street, the perennial northern soap opera, is definitely the longest running fictional television series in the UK. sjc

And didn't The Sooty Show run for some inordinately long period of time?

Yes but it was in non-continuous periods

Also The Sky at Night has been running continuously once a month from 1957 ; Patrick Moore missed his very first episode this month because of food poisoning -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, while Doctor Who is the longest-running dramatic science-fiction series, the Australian children's programme Mr. Squiggle (about a man from the moon with a pencil for a nose) technically wins, since it was never on hiatus for 14 years and ran from 1959 to 1999 - 40 years without any significant breaks. But I'm just being a pedant, looking for an excuse to create an entry for him. ;) Guybrush 03:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you want to be pedantic, Mr. Squiggle sounds more like a fantasy series than a science fiction one. But then again, when we're talking about Doctor Who's science we're getting onto dangerous ground... :) -khaosworks 03:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the fact that Star Trek, in its many forms, has actually run longer in number of seasons (28 so far in its five live-action incarnations) than Doctor Who (26). Of course, the latter has still been on TV longer (since 1963 vs. 1966), and one can argue that Star Trek isn't a single series, so I'd say that Doctor Who still has the best claim to this title (except possibly for Mr. Squiggle ☺). — Jeff Q 02:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do the math

Should it be fourteen years? The last series ended in 1989... 1989-2003 is fourteen years

Terminology

Just for reference, since I've seen pages appear for specific serials: Doctor Who terminology (as roughly remembered from my wasted "memorizing useless information" teenage phase:

  • seasons were the yearly runs, like in other tv shows
  • these were made up of serials -- self-contained stories, in a specific location. The TARDIS was hardly ever moved during a serial, in fact often the Doctor found himself separated form it in some way (captured, the thing stolen, key lost, power supply down, something else implausible)
  • each serial was usually several episodes, 4 or 6 being the most common. (there were only ever about 3 single-episode serialss)

Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death

Perhaps the 1999 Red Nose Day episodes should perhaps be mentioned somewhere. It was four episodes called "Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death" where he meets both The Master and Daleks. The Doctor was played by Rowan Atkinson. During the episodes The Doctor is forced to regenerate several times so he's played also played by Richard E. Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant and Joanna Lumley. Also see http://www.table76.demon.co.uk/DrWho/CurseFD.html // Liftarn 12:33 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Dr Who played by Rowan Atkinson??? That is an odd bit of casting! Incidentally, is it safe to assume that this story is an imaginary one? Arno
You assume correctly, it was a for-charity thing I believe. I've seen it, it's hilarious and quite well done. Surpasses the production value of many of the real episodes. :) Bryan
That's 'cos they got all the actors and props free on account of it being for charity.  :o)
For what it's worth, it was Rowan Atkinson in superior git mode (as in the later series of Blackadder), not accident-prone goof mode (as in Mr. Bean). The latter would indeed have been somewhat worrying -- though for some of us, it would merely have confirmed long-held suspicions about how much the BBC truly cares for the series. :) Paul A

Delgado's death

If I remember correctly, Roger Delgado didn't "die suddenly" - wasn't he killed in a car crash in Turkey? Arwel

sounds fairly sudden to me ... -- Tarquin 18:25 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Alien?

(-"alien" he's not an alien to begin with, so best explained in more detail elsewhere)

The Doctor's no bug-eyed monster, true, but are you suggesting the Time Lords are humans? I've never heard of anything in the canon that suggests that. Salsa Shark 11:03 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
what I meant is that it's not till the nd of Troughton that there's any mention of him being an alien. So it's best explained in detail later, I think. "mysterious" is fine for the intro, I think, with more later -- Tarquin 11:06 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)
I'll buy that. Salsa Shark 11:07 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Anniversary Webcast

The BBC announces its 40th anniversary special: an animated miniseries starring Richard E. Grant as the ninth Doctor. Webcast, rather than on television; but you can't have everything. [1] [2]

—Paul A 03:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Behind the sofa?

Could somebody better explain the behind the sofa reference? What do sofas have to do with anything? Tuf-Kat 06:21, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Watching Doctor Who from a position of safety behind the sofa, peering cautiously out to see if the scary bit's over, is (or used to be) one of the great shared experiences of English childhood. Probably not that many people actually did it, strictly speaking, but everyone knew it happened. —Paul A 08:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I definatelty used to watch Dr Who from behind the sofa, it's one of my earliest memories quercus robur 15:31, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Actually, we didn't have a sofa in the room with the TV in it -- I used to watch Doctor Who through the crack in the door at the bottom of the stairs! Arwel 10:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
FWIW: the day after I read the above comment I bought the October 2003 issue of SFX magazine. P. 23 has a quote from Mark Doyle (who??), talking about his favourite sci-fi or fantasy hero (The Doctor of course): "Many hours spent watching from behind the sofa in my formative years...[possibly explains a lot]"-- Malcolm Farmer 22:53, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

The Tom Baker photo

Sure he's the longest running Doctor and the most remembered but shouldn't we be fair to the other actors that played the Doctor and have a more general photo like the TARDIS or the DW logo rather then a Tom Baker photo?

PMelvilleAustin 06:28, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Looking back over 40 years

For everybody's information, yesterday (Nov 23 2003) was Doctor Who's 40th birthday. On November 23, 1963, the first Doctor Who episode was broadcast.

BTW, is anyone watching the Hartnell episodes on ABC-TV? I'm finding them surprisingly bland!

Arno 09:49, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I assure you, they were not seen as bland when they were first aired. Most old sci-fi looks pretty dry to us now, but my relatives who watched the first airings of Dr. Who tell me it was an absolute thrill ride (and they did literally hide behind the sofa.) In fact, William Hartnell left the series because he thought it was getting too intense and scary for kids! BarkingDoc
Did he? They certainly got scarier after that, whith a far greater emphahsis on monsters and the phasing out of historicals during the Troughton era. But looking at the Hartnell stories now, they seem so bland and sometimes silly. I remember watching the 2-episode "Edge of Destruction" story, and that button marked with what was obviously a texta heading was so silly. The first episode of that story was also hard going, with a weak cliffhanger. Still, there's no getting past the magic of that first Dr Who episode "An unearthly child". Arno 07:46, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Really? The Edge of Destruction is still one of my favourites -- probably partly because of the solid music -- and although it looks dated now, I think it still stands up pretty well. Err, I haven't actually seen it in over 10 years, though, I guess ;) -- Tlotoxl 08:01, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, its certainly unique. It's one of the only 2-episode stories ever done - I gather that it was meant as a 'filler'- and , aside from Episode 1 of "Ark in Space" - the only episodes to feature DR Who and his companions only. At least Episode 2 was better, no doubt because of a different director. It certainly made more sense. Arno 05:57, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

List of serials

List of Doctor Who serials needs a lot of work - or rather, the individual stories need a lot of work. A few have started appearing (some wikified, some not) but most are still missing. I'm doing what I can. We could do with some sort of consistency of what info is included, how it appears, etc. Anyone got any ideas? --ALargeElk 16:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Splitting the page

The page is approaching the 32kb limit, and I'm thinking of culling some of the information and links. Any suggestions? Right now I'm considering removing the info on The Master in the main article, since it's not directly relevant to the Doctor, per se (and also mostly covered in the Master's own entry). The Missing Episodes, Doctor Who in America and Doctor Who Spin-offs sections could be moved to separate articles as well, with pointers as needed. What do you guys think, or shall I just do it?

Well- a subject like this could conceivably take up much more than 32kb very easily - if the only way to accommodate that is by splitting into different pages, then so be it - go ahead, I say. Love the work you're doing on this page - looking good -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moving sections

Does anybody else think that "New beginnings" ought to be moved up to follow "1989 cancellation", ahead of "Missing episodes" and "Other appearances"? Also, it could perhaps do with a new title, such as "2005 revival" or "the new series" or similar. Opinions? Angmering 14:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, what I've done is this. Move 1989 Cancellation down, past "Other appearances" and "Missing episodes" to just before the 2005 section which I've renamed "2005 revival". This makes more intuitive sense (at least to me), as the latest information on the show should be at the bottom of the article. I've also moved the Peter Cushing info from the end of "Changing faces" to where it more properly belongs, in "Other appearances". --khaosworks 16:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Seems like a good solution to me. You're right about the newest information needing to be at the bottom, I hadn't thought about that. Angmering 19:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zygon query

Were the Zygons an important enough adversary to put in the list of monsters? There's a Zygons orphaned article floating around out there. Joyous 02:56, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

There's actually a Zygon link in the BBV entry. Proper wiki format should mean that Zygons should be moved to Zygon, anyway. I've done that, and for the moment, categorized it as well as added a bit to it. As to whether they should be in the list of monsters, probably not - they only appeared in one serial, and while popular with fans, those mentioned in the main entry under "The monsters" have all appeared at least twice. --khaosworks 03:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Half human?

many protested at the revelation that the Doctor was "half-human on his mother's side,"

Though this does fit with the revelation in Battlefield that the Doctor is Merlin. Afterall, Merlin is "half-human on his mother's side." -- Logotu 19:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But Merlin was half-demon. Are Time Lords demons? I don't think so. Maybe Geoffrey of Monmouth did.
I find it silly when fans complain about plot moves like this. I mean, Doctor Who has always contradicted itself. If the scriptwriters choose to make him half-human, then he is half-human. The fans do not own the exclusive right to choose what direction the franchise takes. Okay, *Rant Over*. :) - Mark 01:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It is ultimately the choice of individual fans to think what they like about such things, though, and if the owners of the franchise want to keep on selling their product to those fans they would probably be well served by paying some attention to what those fans think of what they do with it. "Exclusive rights" don't enter into the mater, unless perhaps one wishes to argue that the owners of the franchise have some sort of right to determine what the fans like. Bryan 02:34, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The beauty, I find, of the nature of time travel in Doctor Who (although this will send some continuity-minded fans into apoplectic fits) is that really, the Doctor's own personal timeline must have beens screwed around with so many times that even he's not sure what or who he is anymore. I've always been of the opinion that canon is what you choose to accept. It may not be the same mere seconds from now. Yes, I know for the sake of enjoyable stories it should be kept consistent as possible. All I'm saying is that the nature of the Whoniverse implies this ready-made mechanism for explaining inconsistencies.
As for paying attention to fans - one must note that fans make up only a very small (but vocal) segment of a show's viewing audience. Frankly, if the producers and writers did everything the fans wanted, we'd still have William Hartnell as the Doctor and the Daleks would still be running around on static electricity. Some fans tend to want to complain if there's anything remotely changed about their favorite show, some fans complain if things aren't exactly like they want it to be, and some fans just complain. This happens everywhere - Star Trek, comic books, you name it. Ultimately, the only things writers and producers should worry about is if the viewership ratings slip... that is a much better indicator that something is wrong rather than to solve it by pandering to fans.
As for the Doctor being half human... it's one of those things. It doesn't contradict anything we've seen. To be honest, it feels like a cynical marketing ploy directed at the American networks, but it's a minor detail. It does explain his obsession with Earth and humanity in general, though, not to mention why the Cheetah Planet sent him "home" to Earth in Survival (Doctor Who). In Planet of the Spiders, the TARDIS brings him "home", to Earth. In The Ice Warriors, he makes the cryptic remark, "What do you mean, 'I'm only human?!' Well, as a matter of fact..." but goes no further. In The Evil of the Daleks, the Daleks identify him as "more than human".
So... y'know. The fans who are complaining about how it contradicts continuity don't have much on their side, I'm just sayin'. On the other hand, if they're complaining because it violates the spirit of the Doctor, that's a whole 'nother debate. --khaosworks 04:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I could dispute some of those issues you raise, but that would be a side issue because you're totally right on the last point; I was thinking more of the "spirit" of Doctor Who rather than whether the Doctor's revelation meshed with continuity. I have my own personal vision of Doctor Who and when I'm enjoying Doctor Who "for fun" rather than "for encyclopedic purposes" I freely pick and choose from available continuity inside my head to match it. :) Bryan 05:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who is the Doctor?

As the series progressed, the Doctor's role was gradually fleshed out. From nothing at the beginning to apparently quite a senior position or respect (if not approval) amongst Time Lords, going by vague memory perhaps even close to the Presidency or similar.

So the section "Who was Dr Who?" never really answers its own title. Could someone with more knowledge than I have, fill in what's actually known of the Doctor and his background by adding a sentence or so about Dr Who as a Time Lord, his position, and stance amongst time lords, or similar? Thanks FT 01:54, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

That is, in effect, the entire point of the section. "Who is the Doctor?" points out the unanswered, eternal question at the heart of the series, more than any dry recitation of the Doctor's character history would - which is riddled with contradictions anyway. His position among his people has never been particularly good - he was Lord President for a time, but as Arc of Infinity showed, he was replaced because he ran away from the job, and he was placed on trial in Trial of a Time Lord.
So it's all status quo now, really. The last time we saw Gallifrey was in Trial, spin-offs notwithstanding. The Doctor is what he's always been, a renegade, and that is amply, IMO, represented in the text. Any one else have any other thoughts?
By the by, the regeneration bit you added is a bit redundant, since it's covered under "Changing faces" below. ----khaosworks 06:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Khaosworks, thats exactly the kind of extra info I was after :) FT2 18:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

That Michael Grade paragraph in the 2005 section

I removed it yesterday and now it's been put back. I don't want to start a pointless edit war so I thought I'd start a discussion about it here. By all means, have a comment along the lines of Grade saying he doesn't mind the series coming back as long as he doesn't have to watch it, but it's the allow part that's just plain wrong. As the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC, Grade is in charge of the BBC's regulatory body - one that has no say over editorial decisions such as whether a particular drama programme will or will not be made. The fact that so many Doctor Who fans got worried when he returned to the BBC as chairman has more to do with their paranoia than what Grade could actually do or not do. Angmering 14:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about the full quote. Something like: On 2 April 2004 speaking on BBC Radio Four, Grade said "This time it's none of my business what happens to Doctor Who, as long as I don't have to watch it." Rmhermen 15:43, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
That seems like a good compromise. I suggest for the full paragraph: Ironically, in April 2004 Michael Grade returned to the BBC, this time as the Chairman of the Board of Governors, although this job does not involve any commissioning or editorial responsibilities. As Grade himself said on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme on April 2nd, ""This time it's none of my business what happens to Doctor Who, as long as I don't have to watch it." How does that sound? Angmering 15:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Added, with some rephrasing. --khaosworks 16:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That seems to have settled it nicely! Angmering 16:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Eye of Harmony

Noticed that there were a few links to the Eye of Harmony but no article for it. I have created a short stub to fill the gap - feel free to add/delete/modify/whatever. Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rassilon

Rassilon - Another in Dave's sequence of "plant a stub and watch it grow" articles on the back of yesterday's Eye of Harmony success. Again - modify as you see fit. Zaphod Beeblebrox 05:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Matrix

Added Matrix (Doctor Who) as an entry. --khaosworks 16:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article growth

Since I split the Doctor Who in America and Doctor Who spin-off articles off from the main article some months ago to reduce the unweildiness of the page, the article has grown considerably since then. While It is undoubtedly interesting to include so much detail on the back and forth that created the series (and the new one) and add a bibliography, I'm wondering whether all this detail is strictly necessary. Just throwing this out for possible discussion. -khaosworks 13:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, a Reference section is simply regarded as being good Wikipedia practice, which is why I added that. And as for the details on the creation and the production of the series - well, we have plenty of information on the fiction in the article, whereas I felt there was less of the reality. If it were up to me (which it isn't, of course) I'd cut back on the fiction before the production, as the fiction can more easily be split off into separate articles - remember, this is about the television series Doctor Who, not necessarily the character The Doctor... Angmering 15:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I want to make it clear, in case anyone takes it the wrong way, that I'm not faulting any of the additional material. My editor's eye just looks at the stuff there and starts feeling the urge to think of ways to condense it. Still, any more views on this from other people? -khaosworks 19:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I don't believe in removing valid information purely for space reasons. How about splitting off the sections "Who is the Doctor?" and "Changing faces" into the article The Doctor (Doctor Who), which would be all about the main character specifically, and leave this article to be all about the show itself? This makes sense to me because as things stand the current article is about two distinct subjects that can be discussed separately. The only tricky bit I can see in doing this would be finding some way to preserve that wonderful pun in the first of those two section headers. :) Bryan 19:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That strikes me as being a good idea, too. Angmering 19:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem - how about, we create two new detailed articles - History of Doctor Who, and The Doctor (Doctor Who), which we can pile in all the detail we want about the production and the character respectively. The current sections can remain, just condensed down to an essential summary with a pointer to the respective detailed article (rather like the way country articles have pointers to "History of..." articles).
In the The Doctor (Doctor Who) article, following the introduction: "The Doctor is the main character in the British science fiction blah blah blah..." and some other introductory remarks, we can have the "Who is the Doctor?" header as well. Sound good? -khaosworks 23:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. You could probably take out the 'References' section too, as it'll be duplicated in the History of Doctor Who article - I only quoted the sources there I'd used for putting together the new 'Origins' and '2005 revival' bits. Angmering 23:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who wants to do it (no pun intended)? I would, but I'm at Worldcon at the moment. But if there's no particular hurry, I can do the necessary when I get back on Monday. -khaosworks 05:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is done! History of Doctor Who needs expanding of course, but I shall work on that over the next few days, and doubtless others will come along and contribute to such a topic. Angmering 11:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed as if I was being overly defensive! :-) Here's a thought - if it is decided that the additional production history is too much (although I maintain the single paragraph on the creation of the show was a bit mean, which is why I expanded it to three, and there was nothing at all about *why* the show is coming back) how about a separate History of Doctor Who article, concentrating more on the production history, in the same way that there's a general article on The Beatles and a more detailed History of The Beatles? Angmering 19:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Enemies

What about a doctor who subpage with a list of enemies instead of a tiny section on the main page? First we could add the main ones and when people come they can add others.

My difficulty with that is that in 40 years, the Doctor has racked up a lot of enemies. Who do we put in and who don't we? I don't think that it's useful to put in everybody. I'd rather list the major recurring villains - Daleks, Sontarans, Cybermen, Autons, and leave the others to individual entries. Category: Doctor Who adversaries, perhaps. Thoughts? -khaosworks 21:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spinoffs

A couple of things with the spinoffs -

Should the Novellas section be merged (or at least moved adjacent to) the original fiction? I don't see why there should be an artificial split based on length especially as the short stories are mentioned in the original fiction section.

What about a games and other merchandising section?

Should the Audio and Original Fiction (and novelisations for that matter) have links to a complete list of works?

Would like to hear what others who have done a lot of the extant work think before ploughing ahead as some of these sections will be exhausting as well as exhaustive.

I've done some reoganization so hopefully the arrangement of sections is a bit more logical. If you want to put in external links to lists of the fiction, that'd be fine. The Virgin New Adventures, for example, article already has a list of all the Virgin novels (I would just balk at having the list within the current article). A merchandizing section would also not be amiss, I think, but if it gets too long, may deserve its own article. Let's try it and see. -khaosworks 21:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who villains

List of Doctor Who villains is redundant, as there is a list of Doctor Who villains in the List of supporting characters in Doctor Who. One should be folded into the other. Thoughts? -khaosworks 22:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FAC

I reckon this is close to being a Featured Article. Khaosworks has made some excellent additions and would be ideal to take it through. Personally I can't see much more that could be added. violet/riga (t) 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My blushes, although of course this was a group effort over the last six months or so. I'll put it up as a kind-of self-nomination and see how it goes. -khaosworks 02:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)