Talk:K-9 (Doctor Who)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Surely K9 is the standard spelling? Timrollpickering 09:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going by what's on the side of his body. K-9 is how I've seen it spelled throughout Wikipedia so far. -khaosworks 13:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ontological Paradox?

Does the circuitboard thing necessarily constitute an ontological paradox? We don't know that the circuitboard used by the Doctor for K-9 Mk III is the same one used by Marius for Mk I, or that it's identical to or based on Marius's design. --Jay (Histrion) 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The story was certainly trying to imply that Marius either reverse-engineered the Mk III motherboard or used the components to come up with K-9 Mk I circuitry, so ultimately the knowledge of how to construct the original motherboard is a loop, even if modifications were made along the way, i.e. Mk I -> modified Mk II -> modified Mk III -> reverse engineered to provide the basic design for the Mk I. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
And even if the Doctor designed a completely new circuitboard, it was still inspired by and created for the basic K9 unit. I suppose it sort of adds an extra step to the paradox - Marius discovers the circuit board and has the idea for K9, the Doctor takes the idea for K9 and designs the circuit board. I suppose that might make it a normal predestination paradox instead, but I think an ontological is more likely. If the Doctor's trying to upgrade K9, he's not going to design a new circuitboard utterly and completely independent of the one that came before - if he was at all influenced by K9II's board (and how could he not be?), then there are some elements of it that have no apparent creator, and it's an ontological paradox. (Wow, I just seriously geeked out.) --Brian Olsen 15:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Re If the Doctor's trying to upgrade K9, he's not going to design a new circuitboard utterly and completely independent of the one that came before -- I dunno, if anyone would, it would be the Doctor. "No, no, no, this is completely all wrong!" Heh heh. --Jay (Histrion) 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think a robot dog called K-9 is rather amusing. Canine, K-9, gettid? Darkwarlock999

[edit] Interference

Shouldn't there also be a reference to his appearance in the EDA Interference? It does contradict some of the other appearances, though, as it's stated there that K-9 Mark III was designed specifically to be repairable using the technology of the 80s and 90s. NickBarlow 23:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source of second unit?

"However, the Doctor had somehow obtained K-9's schematics, as he built a second K-9 unit."

Is there any reference for this? I don't recall the Doctor ever stating that he got the second K-9 unit by building it. Ken Arromdee 15:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All the rage in Trenton, New Jersey

Khaosworks removed an anon's addition of the following:

In The Stones of Blood, a human was shocked and surprised to see K-9. The Fourth Doctor informed him that it was an electronic dog and further assured him that, "It's all the rage in Trenton, New Jersey."

Aside from getting Prof. Rumford's gender wrong, I think it's a cute bit of trivia that says a bit about the attitude of characters towards K-9. Can we find a better place for it in the article? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I still think this is worth inclusion somewhere, but won't do it unless somebody else agrees... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe as a featured quote? 23skidoo 16:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I've put it in — if anyone objects strongly, take it right out again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark IV?

I'm uncertain about the article's reference to the proposed late-90s version of K-9 as the Mark IV. Isn't that a bit OR-ish? The link that's provided is to a file named k9_mk5.jpg, which muddies the water even further. If anyone has any info (from old Doctor Who Magazines, for instance) about the proposed series, perhaps we could incorporate the image into a discussion of it (if fair use permits). I'm just not entirely certain that Interference is the best context in which to introduce that version. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe David Tennant referred to the K-9 incarnation in School Reunion as mark III (this was said in the Tooth and Claw episode commentary). This would make sense as if it was a gift to Sarah Jane Smith then she probably still has him with her (and brought her along to the school?) —Liyster 05:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the one in School Reunion is Sarah Jane's Mark III. The question I was asking was about the one about which the article currently says this:
"A new K-9 model was designed for a possible television project in the 1990s that never materialised, and drawings of this model have been identified in some fan circles as the "Mark IV".
In light of the new K9 Adventures series, I'm inclined to remove that sentence altogether, or at least move it to the next section. (The 1990s project may well have been an ancestor of K9 Adventures, and could better be discussed in that context than in the context of the novels.) In fact, I'll be bold and do that — anyone who disagrees can revert with impunity. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it's interesting to compare the proposed 1990s version to the newly announced 2006 model. The 1990s version looks like an old boom box, and there's something very iPod about the new version! Or should I say iPup? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Five Doctors

I accidentally submitted the change before I was finished with the edit summary. Anyway, I put "The Five Doctors" back in, with a mention that it's a cameo appearance. It's as notable as many of the other serials listed (he barely appears in some of them, stuck in the TARDIS), plus it confirmed "K-9 and Company" as canon, which sets up his appearance in "School Reunion." --Brian Olsen 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of appearances query

I'll probably be starting on the list of appearances for K-9 soon, but here's a question: should I distinguish between Mark I and Mark II, etc., within each medium, or create separate lists for each of the variants? Or should I forgo the distinctions entirely? Any thoughts would be appreciated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably neater to distinguish within each medium, especially since when we get to Gallifrey it's both of them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning (perhaps), K-9 made a cameo in James Burke's Connections.

[edit] K-9 Mark II's 's first appearance

Just a small hair to split. Regarding the first time that we see K-9 Mark II. He doesn't actually appear in The Invasion of Time. The Fourth Doctor rolls out a large crate with that label on it at the end of episode six. His first on screen appearance is in The Ribos Operation. I am noting this because the info in the box at the beginning of the article lists TIoT while the list of appearances towards the bottom has TRO as his first serial. As this may be a bit confusing for new fans of the show that come to these pages I thought that it might be worth starting a conversation here to come to a consensus about how this should be noted. Just to get the ball rolling I would vote for TRO as, I suspect, that the box used in TIoT is empty (no real evidence mind you - it is just a suspicion). Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 15:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely - even if he is in the box, we don't actually see him. But I don't think it's a major enough point to require concensus. I'm going to be bold and make the change; someone can revert if they feel like it requires discussion. --Brian Olsen 19:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Ribos" as first appearance makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WIKIA PROJECT DOGS????

hes not a real dog or a real fiction dog because his a robot Sailor cuteness 13:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"a real fiction dog"? DrWho42 15:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm your rite sorry i should have used better words I ment real fiction dogs like lassie who are real dogs k9 is a robot in the shape of a dog thats what i ment sorry it came out wrong :} Sailor cuteness 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Robinson

Edokter recently added this to the bit about K-9's appearance on The Weakest Link: "...much to the dismay of Anne Robinson, who was visibly smitten by K-9 by virtue of calling her "Mistress"." While I agree that's probably a fair (and amusing) assessment of Robinson's reaction, I'm worried that "visibly smitten" and the explanation are too POV. Can anyone think of a better way to word this, while still retaining the "Mistress" joke? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "noticably charmed". — Edokter • Talk • 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof for the name K9 - mark 4

if you watch part two of the sarah jane adventures story "The Lost Boy" on the safe where K9 is kept it says Mark IV on the lock on it, we should make approriate edits to this page soon, unless anyone has anything else to say about it.--Wiggstar69 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I say Mark IV. The IIIb seems to come from some toy. — Edokter • Talk • 08:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
At the time the edits were made to list the model as Mark IIIb, the reasoning was based on the documentation that came with the 1/4 scale RC K-9 toy, yes. At that time it was the only thing close to an official designation that had been given. However, if the SJA show has given evidence that it is in fact Mark IV, then I say go with what the show states. Though I'd be rather curious as to how K-9 could both be in the safe and taking care of the black hole situation. Could it possibly be a spare body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.47.36 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The black hole is stored in that safe (don't ask how). — Edokter • Talk • 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The name that appears in the show is what we have to go by. Only what appears on the air is canon. Even if it's not Doctor Who, it's a recognized Doctor Who spinoff. -- Wryspy (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
First, what is SJA? I am in the US and have no idea. Is it an official Doctor Who media? Also, could you please source what the show says? —70.240.90.173 (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
SJA = The Sarah Jane Adventures, an official BBC spin-off from Doctor Who, made by the same producers and set in the same universe. Anything attributed to SJA is therefor considered 'official' and a reliable source. In last season's final episode, "Mark IV" was clearly seen on the vault where K-9 was sealing the black hole. — Edokter • Talk • 02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] teleport/omni flexible hyperlink facilities

is it possible that the omni flexible hyperlink facilities k9 has is the teleport? it kinda sounds like it might be (word wise) and if it isnt then k9 probably would have said about it in school reunion81.108.233.59 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark IV last appearence

Zythe keeps commenting out K-9 Mark IV's last appearence from the infobox, even though it is quite likely we will never see him again. And even so, it can always be updated. Before I revert again, I'd like some input. — Edokter • Talk • 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is we have no source that it's a last appearance so having a "most recent appearance" section is a bit useless. In fact, separating appearances by model of K-9 is a very in-universe way of sorting things and goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).~ZytheTalk to me! 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree there; MoS does not say anythin about what to include in the article. And as long as there are no sources for future appearences either, I see absolutely no reason not to include it. — Edokter • Talk • 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
MoS says to focus on real world information. Whenever Mark II debuted or Mark III stopped appearing is irrelevant. It belonges on Wikia, not Wikipedia.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
We have no reasoning for saying its his last appearence, anyway his getting his own show, so we know he'll be back in some form.--Wiggstar69 19:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I removed K-9's last appearance is because of the high plausibility of being a recurring character in series 2 (if SJA is renewed). Compare with Romana or pre-announcement Rose, where there is/was very little chance that their respective actresses would reprise the role. Will (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Will first, the likelihood of K-9 being in Series 2 is certainly not 'high' - the nearer the K-9 series gets, the more contentious the rights to use the character will become. In reply to the point made about the different models - they are effictively 4 different characters and so first and last appearances for each should be maintained. Mark I elected to remain with Leela, Mark II with Romana, Mark III sacrificed itself whilst Mark IV is tending to a black hole. I would think putting The Lost Boy as Mark IV's final appearance to date is not unreasonable. Surely it is pure speculation that he may continue in the series beyond this episode? He may well do, but for now that is speculation. As Edokter says, it can always be updated, much as Rose has recently been... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appropriate pronoun

I know editors so far have used 'it' to refer to K-9, but I'm aware that dialogue in the series always referred to the character (as opposed to the prop) as 'he'. That seems to be generally reflected in behind-the-scenes discussions by those who made the programme, too. I find it slightly more difficult to parse the 'it' version - would it be legitimate to switch to a personal pronoun? I note that's the solution used in, say, R2-D2, although of course that doesn't oblige us to go the same way. 81.159.92.241 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)