Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6

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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Instal(l)ment?

Is "instalment" the preferred spelling in the UK or something? My online dictionary references list it as an alternate spelling for "installment," but not as the preferred one, in the UK or anywhere else... but if some British references list it as the preferred British form then, for a British show, we should keep it. :) (Sorry, forgot to sign this yesterday... --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes, instalment is the UK spelling.

Is it just my browser....

or is there something funky afoot concerning Outpost Gallifrey? Really, I can't seem to get to the site at all and knowing how many Doctor Who articles link to this can certainly prove a great deal of a problem.. DrWho42 14:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's working fine for me... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. There's a note on the front page explaining that the site may experience some delays due to high traffic volume this week. I expect that's what caused your issues. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguably or not?

An anon recently removed the word "arguably" from the sentence "Of all the monsters and villains, the ones that arguably most secured the series' place in the public's imagination were the Daleks." Khaosworks reverted it, saying "reinserting qualifier to maintain NPOV". But is it really necessary for NPOV? Surely it's an unarguable fact that no other Doctor Who monster has had seeped as far into popular culture as the Daleks. You may get the occasional Cyberman reference, but "Dalekmania" was a real historical phenomenon that no other Doctor Who monster has matched. And it's also pretty unarguable that without the smash success of the Daleks in 1964, Doctor Who wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. I think that we can do without the "arguably". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

*shrug* I shy from definitive statements unless cites can be provided, but if people think it's so readily apparent that the Daleks are of that status (and I really can't argue convincingly against that, nor would I ultimately want to), then it's okay. I simply was trying to hedge all bets in case people questioned it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel that strongly about it either, really, but it's my feeling. Of course, if others feel that a case can be made for any of the other monsters, "arguably" can go back in — I just haven't encountered that argument myself, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur - there can be little doubt that the Daleks are, by a long chalk, the best known and most ingrained in popular culture. —Whouk (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree since the Daleks are a British cultural icon. No other Doctor Who villians can say that, really. GusF 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It's like using the term "arguably" when referring to Marilyn Monroe as the Hollywood's most famous sex symbol. It's a verifiable fact. Dalek is even listed in the dictionary now ... they're like Star Trek's Klingons, which are inarguably the most famous monster on the show. I think it's fine to remove "arguably" in this case because, presumably, the proof that the Daleks were the most popular Doctor Who monster should be self-evident in the article Dalek. 23skidoo 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Companions - Martha Jones reference

At the end of the Companions section, there was this sentence...

"Freema Agyeman is to take the role of Martha Jones, the Doctor's next companion after Rose.[4]. Apart from her name, no details are currently available about her character."

This sentence has now been removed. I think it should still be in there though. I'd like to reinstate it, but please say if you object. Jamandell (d69) 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

  • As much as I hate press embargoes (I don't see the point), I have to agree that Wiki should respect it. --Ood 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is on a publicly-accessible web-page on the BBC's server, does it not become de facto publicly-released information? This is an encyclopedia - not a media partner of the BBC. -Seidenstud 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a embargo for THE PRESS - also by putting it up on a INTERnet page rather than a INTRAnet page it is a de-facto release. --Charlesknight 22:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Overtaking Star Trek

Regarding the statement that Doctor Who is due to overtake Star Trek in terms of number of episodes in the 2007 series. Does this include the 13(?) Torchwood episodes? I presume the ST figure includes all the spin-offs. --Billpg 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The installment-count assertion smacks of original research and depends entirely on what you personally consider to be canon, or what counts as a spin-off. For example, Paramount Pictures does not consider Star Trek: The Animated Series to be Star Trek canon, yet you would have to include those cartoons to arrive at the figure of 726 ST episodes quoted in this article. TAS notwithstanding, then, there have been 702 installments of Star Trek. Not counting the feature films. On the Doctor Who side we have Torchwood, K-9 and Company, the 2005 Children in Need special and the Peter Cushing films, all of whose canonicity you could debate over. That sort of discussion is probably an exercise best left to the interested viewer. --Kwekubo 20:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As I think I've said before (probably in the archive now), to avoid NOR we should stick with the count used by DWM for its Time Team feature, which is what it's set to ATM. —Whouk (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Going by the DVM count, then, canon Doctor Who has already passed canon Star Trek (excluding films) in terms of number of instalments. --Kwekubo 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if you don't count TAS, there are 704 episodes of "Star Trek" GusF 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad... --Kwekubo 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings for Series 2 Finale

http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/international/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002802642

Don't know if anyone wants to include it in the article but there you go. jdobbin 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Recent posts by those who know on Outpost Gallifrey indicate that this was fifth in the week overall, after three football matches and one ep of Eastenders, which equals the highest position established by Ark in Space (which is mentioned in the main article). I think we still need to wait for overnights and the resolution of a couple of technical issues (e.g. will the football matches end up split into the match and any pre- and post-match commentry) but if the current positions hold then we should amend the article to reflect this--82.2.121.68 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo

There seems to be a bit of controversy over whether the diamond logo should be labelled the most popular or most familiar logo. I believe it was, as its use coincided with not only the Tom Baker era, but also the show's first serious syndication in North America. Maybe the wording can be tweaked in the caption a bit more, but I still think it's fair comment. 23skidoo 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, the diamond logo is probably historically the most familiar, for the reasons you suggest. On the other hand, the current series has matched the Tom Baker era for popularity (at least in the UK), so an argument could probably be made that the current "taxicab" logo represents as popular an era. (The general fan dislike of the taxicab logo complicates things slightly as well.) Maybe the diamond logo caption should just note its use during the late Pertwee and Baker years, and readers can draw their own conclusions about popularity? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps if we include the term "historically" it might make things clearer. The current logo might be popular (BTW when did it start being called the "taxicab" logo? I always thought the nickname was "lozenge") but it has only been in use for 2 years, whereas the diamond logo was in use from 1973-80 and continued to be used on books and video releases for years afterwards, and when Virgin books launched the Missing Adventures books, they used the diamond logo, too. Calling it the "most popular" logo might be a bit problematic but I think a case could be made that it was the most widely-used logo (even moreso than the 1970-73 Pertwee logo which was revived by the 8th Doctor). So perhaps widely-used or most recognizable might be terms to consider. 23skidoo 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Longest-running, revisited

Mowbray recently changed "The programme is one of the longest-running science fiction television series in the world" to "The programme is the longest-running...". This has been discussed before, most recently here. There are two problems with saying Doctor Who is the longest-running science fiction television programme. First, there's a Japanese anime about a robot cat from the future, Doraemon, which has been running continuously since 1979, beating the original Doctor Who's 26-year run. Second, if by "longest-running" you mean longest time between broadcast of first episode and most recent episode, The Twilight Zone beats Doctor Who with 44 years between its 1959 debut and the last ep of the 2003 UPN revival. We had a long debate over how best to reflect these ambiguities, and decided that the best way was to say "one of the longest-running". Of course, there are no binding decisions, and we can revisit the topic, but we should do so with discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree Doctor Who is beat by that Japanese series, Twilight Zone can't be counted because none of its incarnations ran for 26 seasons in a single run; I've never heard Twilight Zone up for consideration as the longest running due to the number of years since the first episode. Now if the show had run continuously, that would be a different thing. But this debate (and the previous one) is the only place I have ever seen this. 23skidoo 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
"Longest running show" is like "tallest building". There are different criteria you can use for longest running show--longest from start to finish counting gaps, largest number of episodes, largest number of continuous seasons, longest in minutes, as well as the problem over whether to count series such as Star Trek as several shows or one show and whether to include movies and specials. There is no such thing as a single unquestionable candidate for "longest running show". Ken Arromdee 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
There sure isn't. "Largest number of individual aired epsiodes" and "Longest time between premiere and last ep aired" seem to be the two leading candidates. Should the reason why "Longest-running" is deprecated be right in the article, so as to preclude the argument having to be repeated?
--Baylink 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need it in visible text — it's really a digression from the topic of Doctor Who as such — but it might be useful to put it in hidden text to give editors like Mowbray a heads-up that this has been discussed before and is less straightforward than it might at first appear. I'll put something in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made an edit describing Doctor Who as the longest running continuous science fiction drama series in order to state clearly that it has ran longer than any one incarnation of the Twilight Zone and that Doctor Who should not be compared to Doraemon (very) generically in regards to the tenure of the show. Doraemon is definitely aimed at children and it is not a show that adults would watch regularly. Doraemon therefore gets an unfair advantage due to its demographics. --Rachel Mules 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet, Doctor Who was aimed at children at the get go - it only became a "family" show by virtue of popularity. Also, when we say "continuous", are we taking into account the 16 year hiatus? Or is "continuous" only applicable to the 1963-1989 run? You see what we mean about criteria? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

By number of episodes and number of television-hours, Dark Shadows is a candidate (and a notoriously hard one to beat because it ran on a soap-opera schedule). As for first-episode-to-last-episode, wait until next year and Doctor Who will beat the Twilight Zone. As for number of seasons total, Doctor Who has the most unless all the Star Treks are counted as one show. For continuous production, Doraemon wins *as of this year*, but no live-action show is a candidate.

I think "was the longest-running television science fiction show at the time of its original cancellation in 1989" is incontestable.  :-)

Incidentally, the show was not initially aimed at children: it was intended as a family show originally. It was produced by the BBC Series (or was that Serials?) Department, not the BBC Children's Department, for that reason. --Nathanael Nerode

I still think it's ridiculous to consider Twilight Zone at all because it was never in continuous production for all those years and that's what should be considered above all else. And Doraemon can easily be bypassed by stating Doctor Who is an "English-language science fiction series". In terms of Dark Shadows having more episodes, this is true but a) there is debate over whether Dark Shadows is truly "science fiction" (though if I recall there was a time-travel element to it), plus it may have done hundreds of episodes but it still only ran for 2 or 3 years which means in terms of production length even Star Trek: Enterprise has it beat. But the Doctor Who production office opened in 1963 and stayed open until actually 1990, so even if the new series were discounted we're still talking 26 years of continuous, uninterrupted operation (that little gap before Trial of a Time-Lord notwithstanding), and I still contend no English-language science fiction series comes close, not Twilight Zone (which had something like a 25-year production gap followed by another decade-long production gap) or Star Trek (which consisted of a number of different spinoffs). I think folks are playing with semantics to the excusion of actual fact. 23skidoo 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

...and re-revisited

Guinness have given Doctor Who the title of "longest-running sci-fi show" [1], [2]. Should we incorporate this into the article?

(Incidentally, I don't understand how Guinness reckons that Stargate is the longest-running (consecutive) sci-fi show; surely 1963–1989 is longer than 1997–2006! Even if you want to break at the 1986 hiatus, 1963–1985 still beats Stargate's 10 years! But I digress...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Guiness can sometimes be confusing, either because they have specific stipulations... or could possibly be mistaken in regards to some matters. For example the record for Longest Running Animated TV Series has been awarded to 'The Simpsons'[3] which has been running since 1989 with 381 episodes... but I am not sure that is correct to say it is the longest running, Doraemon (again) beats it on most episodes (over 2000 according to ANN[4]) and another anime Sazae-san beats in on the lenght of time it has been running (continusly since 1969) but the record book doesn't acknowledge this. --GracieLizzie 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that we should include this. Guinness is a well-established and recognised collection of records that is used worldwide. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as it's explicitly stated in the article that Guinness is making the claim. CovenantD 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Season/Series

The show being originally British, shouldn't references to eg: "Season 23" be to "Series 23" instead; perhaps with a wikilink to clarify on first reference? My understanding is that in articles concerning things primary UK that the UK usage customarily prevails, but I don't want to just Be Bold, because I know this is a lot of people's hobby horse, as well.
--Baylink 16:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than you might think. You're right that general British usage would say "Series 23". However, for some reason the term "season" has become the standard in Doctor Who fandom, dating at least back to Jean-Marc Lofficier's Programme Guide (first pub. 1981) and widely used since then. Since the programme's return last year, it's also become fairly common to use "Series 1" to refer to the 2005 series, and to distinguish it from the original "Season 1" (1963-1964). There are still some fans who prefer to use consecutive numbering with the classic and new series, making the most recent series "Season 28", but the programme makers call it "Series 2" and that's the most accurate usage — however, to avoid confusion and maintain NPOV in an inconsequential fan debate, it's best to call it "the 2006 series" here on Wikipedia. There might be an argument for extending that usage to the classic series, but I think "Season 13" is stylistically cleaner than "the 1975–1976 season" (or series).
But this is just my view, and I'm probably too close to the insular fan-community perspective. If anyone feels strongly about it, we can try to get a wider perspective. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'll just wade in on this since no-one else has. I appreciate Josiah's objectivity, considering his professed closeness to the fan community. Baylink is right that terminology and spelling should reflect the 'home market', in this case Britain. My feeling is that as this is an encyclopedia then the fannish convention of 'season' rather than 'series' should not override Wikipedia guidelines that mandate 'series' in this case. I'm currently making the Blake's 7 article all consistently 'series' (there was a mix of both terms); I don't know whether the use of 'season' there was also a fannish thing. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Blake's 7, but as for Doctor Who we should also consider that the BBC's official Doctor Who website uses "Season" in its episode guide for the classic series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
At the end of the day, it's a balancing act of what's most useful, what's least confusing and what's most correct. In this particular case, I lean on the side of "Season" for the classic series to distinguish it from the revival; fannish usage or not, that's been the commonly used convention for more than two decades. One might also remind ourselves that this is usage is common throughout Doctor Who fandom and not just a quirk of UK vs. American usage. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. I was just pointing out that the usage of "Season" for Doctor Who's 1963–1989 series has been adopted by the BBC, so it's not entirely accurate to characterize it as either "American" or solely fannish. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
From collection on the Outpost Gallifrey forums some of the researchers have said that both terms appear in production documentation right throughout the show's history. Most of the writing about the show uses "season" and I reckon that is the convention for the individual show in question - and the non-fiction writing about Doctor Who is HUGE. Timrollpickering 11:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

New Companion

Just found this[[5]] article on BBC's official Doctor Who website. Gives the character's name and some minor details. I wouldn't feel right about trying to edit this information into the database, but this renders the last entry under "Companions" slightly obsolete. Jaerune 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we should be replacing the image of Rose with Martha yet — wouldn't it be better to wait until we know a bit more about Martha than her name and (former) occupation? I tend to think it's better to illustrate the concept of "Doctor Who companion" with someone who's known to the general public in the role than with the next one, who's only been introduced in newspaper and fan reports. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's one of those things - I felt that it was pretty much well established enough by now to be able to put her picture up, but I won't object if someone switches it back. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
One of what things? I suppose this is a bit like the discussions currently going on at WT:WHO about "general" vs. "fan" approaches — perhaps a generalist approach would show the last well-known companion (Rose), while a fan approach would show the currently filming one (Martha). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it was more like me trying to stave off the inevitable edit wars about putting Martha's picture up now that publicity photos are available. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote with American airing?

I was just wondering, since I created the article for Chris Regina (who's currently Vice President of Programming for Sci Fi), would it be superfluous to insert the quote of: "Our audience has clearly embraced Doctor Who, and it has delivered a significant increase in viewers in the time period. We are looking forward to keeping the momentum going with David Tennant as the new Doctor," with the last line in Viewership? (Prolly seems like it, but I wanted your take on it.) DrWho42 13:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The second sentence ("keeping the momentum going") is almost certainly superfluous management-speak, but the first sentence (about the increase in viewers) might be relevant, especially with the citation. I'd be OK with adding that part, or leaving it out.
There also might be a place for it at Doctor Who in America#The new series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of possible regenerations

"The 1976 serial The Deadly Assassin revealed that a Time Lord can generally regenerate only twelve times."

I know very well that there are only 12 regenerations allowed but I do have a question about this. In various series the remaining regenerations of a Time lord have been offered to other Time lords. The impression that I get from this is that the number seems to be imposed on the individual Time lords by a governing body. I would think that it is due to advancement, in order for the society to grow and learn they have a limited time, if not the society "stagnates". I have not seen all of the episodes so if someone can clear this up I would appreciate an explanation. If not I suggest a slight change to the sentance as such:

"The 1976 serial The Deadly Assassin revealed that a Time Lord can generally regenerate only twelve times although it is unknown whether the limiting factor is biological, mechanical or government imposed. On occasion Time Lords have been offered the remaining regenerations of a new set of regenerations altogether by the Time Lords Council." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.255.38 (talk • contribs) 16:13, August 20, 2006 (UTC)

We deal with (in detail) the possibility of more regenerations in the Time Lord article and the Doctor (Doctor Who) article. Any reason behind the initial limit is never stated in any story, nor is the mechanism specified. Also, you should notice that those who have gone beyond the limit are not Time Lords or in Time Lord bodies (Minyans in Underworld, the Master in his Trakenite body, Mawdryn and company in Mawdryn Undead; Professor Chronotis going beyond his twelfth regenration in Shada is only a surmise by the Doctor upon seeing the body disappear). For the purposes of the general summing up in the main article, it is sufficient to note the basic statement, made unequivocally in The Deadly Assassin, that after 12 regenerations, nothing can stop death. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Though it has been reported that the new season 3 will reveal a way round the 12 regeneration limit. We shall have to wait and see... -- Arwel (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you're talking about the "Doctor Who's son" business, then we pretty much know (from Tom Spilsbury at Doctor Who Magazine) that this was was a story cooked up by a Daily Express journalist based on a "Wouldn't it be an interesting idea if...?" comment from Peter Davison. Angmering 22:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Although it has not been seen to have actually happened the Time Lords Council(?) have offered the remaining regenerations of one time lord to another. The Valyard was one and the Master was offered new regenerations from what I have read. If it was covered in another section then it's fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.255.38 (talk • contribs) 12:45, August 21, 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were just the forums, yes. However, the sites are more than just forums, and the link goes to the main pages of those sites, not the forum pages. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo groups such as this count as a discussion forum, which requires a subscription and is not readily available to all. This goes against the WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear any arquments for keeping this link? --My arguments for removing.
  • This is a forum.
  • The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group
  • Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.

If you have any further questions about the role of Yahoo Groups within a Wiki article, forward your concerns to Paul E. Ester. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd thing in history

Was just looking at old revisions of this article recently (I know, I was bored) and found this, intriguing addition:

In September 2002, BBC producers announced that the search was underway for a Ninth Doctor to appear in a new series of the popular show. The first for fourteen years.

This was added in the same month, September 2002. That's 2002, a whole year away before the return of the show was announced. What's even more surprising is that it remained in the article until an anon quietly removed it in May 2003.

So, what was it about? Was it just another of the many rumours that bounded around during the wilderness years? Did someone hear about something similar, but get the wrong end of the stick? It seems quite unusual that not only does something seemingly completely false get added, but it stays there for months on end. BillyH 20:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Between 1989 and 2003 there were literally dozens of rumors and false starts. At one point Spielberg was going to do a movie. Another report had David Bowie playing the Doctor. There was a press conference around 1991-ish where an actor no one had ever heard of was actually announced as being the new Doctor (though this wasn't a BBC press conference, but rather something connected with either a stageplay or a film ... it never got off the ground, anyway). And for about a year or so prior to the announcement of the TV series there was serious talk of the BBC launching a film project (in fact according to some sources the film plans are still there, much like there are plans for separate film and TV remakes of The Prisoner). However I'd say that the BBC probably didn't ever announce an actual series in 2002; maybe the original poster meant a movie production. OR -- it could be a reference to the Shalka Doctor. 23skidoo 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Broadcast incident"

I fixed some formatting on the recently added section about the Max Headroom pirate broadcast, but I'm of two minds about whether it's really notable enough to include in the main Doctor Who article. Would it be better to move it to Doctor Who in America? (It's already discussed at Horror of Fang Rock as well.) How significant is this incident to Doctor Who as a whole? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not significant enough to be on the main article. At best, the America article or, as it already is, at Fang Rock. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. I'll move it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was about to ask about that, seeing as how small-ish the segment was.. DrWho42 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Expand Viewership: Fandom and Merchandise.

Actually the Fandom section caught my eye before the latter, but I feel that it is in dreadful need for expansion when compared to the rest of the article. Besides that, the Merchandise is even smaller and perhaps something written up for List of episodes and serials could be done (well, prolly not but just pointing out another thing that seems to be lacking). DrWho42 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

405-line

According to the infobox, Doctor Who was transmitted on 405-line until 1969, but it actually began using 625-line from either Dec 1967 or Jan 1968.--Jawr256 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Those statements don't contradict, since it could be transmitting in both formats for a period of time. Ken Arromdee 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But it's more important to document what format it was recorded in (not what format it was transmitted in). Old and new standards were simulcast until 1985, much as the analogue and digital standards are simulcast now. As to the answer, it's complicated, since it appears some new cameras were used in the middle of some episodes partway through one season, and then at some stage a 625-line master was created rather than 405-line. I defer to Outpost Gallifrey for the best source of information. Whophd 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory Statements about New Companion

In the article summary, before the TOC, this statement is made:

A Christmas special, The Runaway Bride, is scheduled to air in December 2006 with a third series, starring David Tennant as the Doctor and Freema Agyeman as his companion Martha Jones, to follow in 2007 on BBC One.

Later, in the Companions section, this statement is made:

Freema Agyeman will play Martha Jones, the Doctor's next companion after Rose.[4] Apart from her name, the casting of family members and the information that she will be a medical student, no details are currently available about her character. She will not appear in the 2006 Christmas special.

I'm not sure how she can appear and not appear in the same episode.

Derek Price 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Read it again: Third series with Tennant and Agyeman. Wiki-newbie 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie is correct, but I've split the sentence for clarity's sake. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)