Talk:New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Order of novels

Are the three books that have so far been released in any particular order? I'd like to know before I read them --Jawr256 13:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

No they are all free standing stories. --Tim Pope 13:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are free standing, but from the gallifrean symbols (also used for the chapters) I think the order is:
  1. The Clockwise Man
  2. Winner Takes All
  3. The Monsters Inside

(as it is on this page). --bjwebb 15:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked at the symbols and its:
  1. The Clockwise Man
  2. The Monsters Inside
  3. Winner Takes All

(this order is also shown on the page between the two title pages at the front of each book) Jawr256 16:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've rearranged the page accordingly --Jawr256 18:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! --bjwebb 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The order of the NDAS between the two title pages is different in each of the books--Tim Pope 07:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but from between the two title pages you see that:
    • The Clockwise Man is before The Monsters Inside;
    • The Clockwise Man is before Winner Takes All;
    • The Monsters Inside is before Winner Takes All.
Jawr256 08:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Another reason for The Monsters Inside being before Winner Takes All os that Justicia is Rose's first time on another planet, yet in Winner Takes All she goes to the Quivvells' planet --Jawr256 07:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only away from Earth

Isn't this line from the Monsters Inside summary wrong:

is the only known Ninth Doctor adventure (televised or literary) that takes place away from Earth.

What about the Queevils planet? --βjweþþ (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


We also hear of the Doctor's visit to The Woman Weeps planet, which Rose mentions in Boomtown.


By the way, I don't know how to edit this, but the link to Stephen Cole goes to the wrong Stephen Cole. The one who works on Doctor Who books is not the TV presenter.

[edit] Justicia isn't the first reference

In World War Three, Jackie says that "since the Doctor walked into our lives, I've been attacked in the street...I've had monsters..." - could this refer to Darren beating her up in WInner takes all?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 16:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Or it could simply refer to her being attacked at the end of Aliens of London. I've added the word "explicit" to the sentence to qualify it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If she was attacked at the end of Aliens of London, she's pretty unlikely to describe that as being attacked in the street since she was in her kitchen. But I wouldn't want to interfere with Wikipedia: it's not a community encylopedia which anyone can edit, after all.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Print runs question

A user deleted the statement that the initial print runs were sold out for the books on the grounds that it was an unfounded statement. I know the CBC's official Doctor Who page stated this, and I believe it was also posted to Outpost Gallifrey. Is there a source that indicates they were not sold out? 23skidoo 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Tenth Doctor Adventures

The 9th and 10th Doctor books have the same style, format and, indeed, authors. It seems to me simpler to describe them all under one article. The changes between the three waves of releases simply reflect changes in the TV series (first three with just Rose, Captain Jack joins for the second three, Doctor regenerated for the third three). Bondegezou 12:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, since the books are being considered a separate line and there may be future Ninth Doctor novels published. 23skidoo 12:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Some fans consider the books to be a separate line, but BBC Books don't. As far as I can see, BBC Books are treating them exactly the same. There may be future 9th Doctor novels published, but there are no such plans currently announced and, well, anything could happen in the future. Bondegezou 15:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think a merge is probably a reasonable idea, but I'm not sure what the combined article should be called. Outpost Gallifrey refers to "New Series Adventures", but that's not specific enough for a Wikipedia article. Does anybody know how the BBC refer to the line? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. Read it carefully: Tenth Doctor; Ninth Doctor. Even if the BBC doesn't regard them as diferent lines, it would confuse readers to have them on the same page. A disambiguation maybe, but not a merger. Besides, what would we call it? --Ω 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The novelisations feature more than one Doctor and their Wikipedia coverage is not split by Doctor. The New Adventures featured more than one Doctor and their Wikipedia coverage is not split by Doctor. The 9th and 10th Doctor books are clearly part of the same series of books: the publisher and the bookshops don't treat them as being separate entities, so why should Wikipedia? I don't see why readers would be confused. What would we call them? What about "Doctor Who New Series Adventures" with redirects from "New Series Adventures", "Ninth Doctor Adventures", "Tenth Doctor Adventures" and any individual novel titles where the novel doesn't have an entry of its own. Bondegezou 15:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly true. We differentiate between the Virgin New Adventures (Seventh Doctor) and the Virgin Missing Adventures (past Doctors) in the same way that when the BBC book series started, the Eighth Doctor stories were dubbed the EDAs and the past doctor books the PDAs by fans even though the covers were the same. This is the use we see generally in Doctor Who fandom, up to and including licensed magazines like Doctor Who Magazine. I hasten to point out that this usage (unlike say, certain serial naming conventions) is in no way contested in fandom. In the same way, the fans have taken to calling the Ninth Doctor books NDAs and presumably the Tenth Doctor books will go the same way. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
We differentiate between the New Adventures and the Missing Adventures because Virgin differentiated between them and they had different packaging etc. We don't differentiate between the 7th Doctor NAs and the one 8th Doctor NA; and we don't differentiate between the MAs by Doctor. The NA/MA distinction was carried over to the BBC Books even though BBC Books made less distinction between the ranges. Still, there are enough differences to justify the 8DA/PDA distinction (one was an ongoing series, one wasn't; BBC Books did have different commissioning policies for the two ranges at times). I don't see any differences between the 9th and 10th Doctor books except the Doctor's incarnation: the branding/marketing is identical, the commissioning policy seems identical, they have the same relationship to the TV series. Common usage in fan discussion seems to be shifting from talking about "NDAs" to talking about "NSAs" (new series adventures). We don't have separate entries for the 9th Doctor TV stories as a unit vs. the 10th Doctor TV series as a unit vs. the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. Doctor TV stories as a unit. Rather, we divide the stories by season/production block. Bondegezou 11:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm ultimately with Tim on this with a wait and see approach. I don't see a common enough use of the term NSA (yet) to justify altering the status quo. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever happened to the term "New Doctor Adventures"? I thought that was the umbrella series that all of the Nine and Ten releases went under. Likewise I thought that's what "NDA" stood for.
Hopefully if David Tennant stays more than one season, then there could be a lengthy range of novels featuring the 10th Doctor. I say let's stick with the status quo and see what happens Tim | meep in my general direction 22:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Let's at least wait and see if BBC Books decides to publish any further Ninth Doctor books. I wouldn't expect to see any for awhile, however, as the BBC will probably want to have as little distraction as possible while trying to establish the Tenth Doctor to an audience that has fallen out of the habit of seeing Doctors regenerate. 23skidoo 04:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
While we're at it, let's merge all the other '________th Doctor Adventures' threads, too. I strongly disagree. It's a whole seperate Doctor. Don't you think the fact that the Tenth Doctor thread is small because he's only been the Doctor for a few months? And we've only seen him on screen for about 40 minutes? No, we should keep the articles seperate, and wait for the Tenth to grow, as it inevitably will.
I think that the reasoning was not that the Tenth Doctor novels were too few, but that they will come to be too many. If in three years we have 18 Tenth Doctor novels and 6 Ninth Doctor novels, the Ninth Doctor series may begin to look like a stubby prequel to the Tenth Doctor series. That said, I agree with those who say that we should wait and see what the line(s) look like later, and what fan consensus emerges. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My main reasoning is that the BBC, BBC Books and the retailers make no distinction between the 9th and 10th Doctor books. Their only difference is the incarnation of the Doctor. This is unlike the situation with the New and Missing Adventures, for example. All the other distinctions made between Dr Who books on Wikipedia are on the basis of how they are produced/presented/marketed, not on the incarnation of the Doctor featured: e.g. The Dying Days is a New Adventure, not an 8th Doctor Adventure despite featuring the 8th Doctor. Bondegezou 16:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about this, but just as a datapoint, both the Doctor Who Guide website and the Discontinuity Guide on the Whoniverse website lump them together as "New Series Books" use the term "New Series Books", although admittedly neither site has added the books featuring the Tenth Doctor yet. Daibhid C 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The Dr Who Guide has now. Bondegezou 09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the broken link to the discontinuity guide in someone's post above. Oh, and the Discontinuity Guide will be adding the 10th Doctor NSAs - and counting them as NSAs - as soon as I've caught up with the new series itself. The reasoning behind using NSAs rather than NDAs/TDAs is that it's far too much hassle to count them as two seperate lines when they're intended as a single line and when there are only six 9th Doctor novels anyway. Oh, and it'll get very confusing if we end up using "EDAs" for whoever follows David Tennant. For my money, it's only a matter of time before fandom predominantly refers to them as a single line, so I'd say that the two articles will need to be merged eventually - but I'm with Khaosworks in the "wait and see" camp. Bouncelot 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has re-started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#New Series Adventures. Bondegezou 16:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justicia reference

"the 2005 series episode Boom Town makes a reference to the Doctor and Rose's trip to the Justicia system."

There is? When was "Monsters Inside" referenced in Boom Town? PaulHammond 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A very brief line of dialogue from Rose: "It's all very well, going to Platform One and Justicia and the Glass Pyramid of San Kaloon, but what if we end up in Brazil? I might need my passport. Y'see, I'm prepared for anything." (line as taken from the Shooting Scripts, but it's pretty much the same in the transmitted episode) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallifreyan numbers, revisited

I don't really want to reopen the merge debate, but it's probably worth noting that the recently released Tenth Doctor novels have the Gallifreyan numbers for 7–9 on the spines (the Ninth Doctor novels had 1–6). This would seem to indicate that BBC Books considers them all to be part of the same, consecutively numbered series. No biggie, just an observation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution

Should we add a section discussing the somewhat erratic distribution of these books outside the UK? The Ninth Doctor (and I believe the 10th Doctor) books were exclusively distributed by a company that normally distributes comic books, and the 9th Doctor books didn't start turning up in regular bookstores until a few months ago. I just tried to order I Am a Dalek through Amazon only to be told the book was not being made available to Amazon after all. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Releases

In September 2006, three new books will be released:

  1. 10: The Nightmare of Black Island
  2. 11: The Art of Destruction
  3. 12: The Price Of paradise.

Also, I have 2 questions.

1) how come the titles used to be so short (Only Human, The Stone Rose,) and now they've become so long?

2) Is there any news on new releases with Martha in them?

Thanks - --Fugabutacus 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The September 2006 novels are noted on the episode page. I don't think the change in title length is significant: it's probably just a coincidence. And really, there's not much difference in length between, say, The Price of Paradise and The Stealers of Dreams or The Feast of the Drowned.
As for novels with Martha, we haven't heard anything yet. Following the previous release pattern, I'd expect a batch of novels with the Tenth Doctor and Martha to be released next spring, early in the broadcast of Series 3, but that's just speculation on my part and doesn't belong in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

Amazon have released synopses for the new batch of books. These are as follows:

Just in case anyone's interested.--Keycard (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update the article now.--Rambutan (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: that's done, now, but the previous batch of three (Nightmare, Price and Art) don't have articles yet.--Rambutan (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the ISBNs for the new books (cause I work in a bookshop). Pup date is 19th April UltimateNagash 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stealers of Dreams

Although it's hard to fit into the continuity of the show, The Stealers of Dreams contains an explicit reference to the events of Boom Town (Rose phones her mum, who berates her daughter for going on an adventure in Cardiff with Mickey; the Doctor Who Reference Guide also supports this placement) so I made the correction accordingly in the text. 23skidoo 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub Status on Books

I have just started reading these books (and being in the US, finding some has been a bit of a challenge). Anyway, also being new to contributing, I'm wondering what an article needs to be no longer considered a "stub." For instance, of the first 6 books, "Only Human" seems to be detailed enough to perhaps qualify to have its "stub" status removed, while the other 5 are obviously too short. I've tried reading through some of the discussion on other (Doctor Who) pages, and left more confused than helped, so I might be missing something. Thanks! Gwydionmom 18:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Only Human is no longer a stub: I've removed the tag. Check out Wikipedia:Stub, which explains what is and is not a stub. Enjoy contributing. Gwinva 16:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Stone Rose

I would like some feedback on 'The Stone Rose' entry. First off, could someone please go through and fix any "americanisms" that might have crept in (plus any other stupid grammar, spelling or punctuation problems). I looked at style guide on WP:WHO, and the Sample book article (Lungbarrow), but I really didn't like the fact that it didn't give a complete plot, just a "teaser summary." So I kinda followed the format for an episode instead (it seems like most of the book articles have more complete plots than what is shown in the sample). I'm thinking I might tackle most of the New Series Adventures (Doctor Who), but wanted to be sure what I was doing was OK before starting on any more (this is my first real attempt at a Wikipedia entry (thanks to Gwinva for the encouragement). Gwydionmom 17:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it when I get a chance, but remember, my opinion is just one of many. Go with your instincts, and keep reading other pages and see what others are doing. As for length/detail of summary, opinion varies widely. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Lengthy plot summaries for a discussion relating to episodes. I guess it's striking the balance between something long enough to be interesting and serve as a reminder of the plot details, and not so long that there's no point reading the book. Any comments particular to The Stone Rose I'll leave on that talk page. Gwinva 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I reread the link, and then did some quick math. Looks like this particular book is roughly 50,000 words, so if the 5% figure is a sorta guideline, I'm a bit long at 2674 (2500 is 5%), but not by much. I guess I'll tackle another one and see how long that ends up and go from there. If anyone else has any thoughts on the matter, I'd love to hear them. Gwydionmom 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Clockwise Man

I've added a plot for The Clockwise Man - have at it everyone! I think it's too long again, but I'm having trouble figuring out what else to remove. (I'm really impressed with how quickly The Stone Rose turned into a real entry once a plot was written out - people came in and added all sorts of interesting stuff.) Gwydionmom 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Feast of the Drowned

I added the plot for this book too. In reading, I wondered if there is enough "evidence" for placing it after Tooth and Claw. At one point in the book, the Doctor tells Rose that humans are "mostly water" and Rose says he's said that before, which reminded me of the scene at the end where she asks about moonlight being bad for the werewolf, and he tells her that she's "70% water and can still drown." I also wondered if it's worth noting the times that the Doctor tastes things or is rude? Or is that just too much detail? There's also a short discussion in the book about Rose's title (assistant, companion, etc?) which is similar to one in School Reunion - is that worth mentioning? Gwydionmom 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's got to be before School Reunion, because of Mickey's role in the story. I suppose it could be set anywhere between The Christmas Invasion and School Reunion — the post Tooth and Claw placement sounds likely, but the evidence is sketchy enough that I wouldn't change the infobox. (Incidentally, is there anything in the novel to indicate that it's necessarily post-New Earth? Remember, the TARDIS begins New Earth in a different location from where it ended in The Christmas Invasion — but I may be forgetting a line about hospitals or something in The Feast of the Drowned.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Lots of ambulances in The Feast of the Drowned but in a quick re-look-through, I don't see anything on hospitals (or, actually, anything that makes it clearly post New Earth). Gwydionmom 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - many of the books seem to mention the Doctor 'not sleeping' which I don't recall encountering anywhere else. Is it worth pointing this out when it's mentioned? Gwydionmom 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so: the original series suggested a couple of times that the Doctor doesn't sleep (or rarely sleeps). For example, in The Talons of Weng-Chiang the Fourth Doctor says "Sleep is for tortoises." The notion that the Doctor doesn't require sleep is frequently found in the other novel lines, so it's probably not worth mentioning in these. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not really read any of the other book series, so I hadn't encountered the idea before (I'm catching up on old series, guess that's something else to keep an ear open for). Thanks. Gwydionmom 20:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Monsters Inside

Added a plot, and split up some of the continuity info. Which brings up another question. I think the last continuity statement is misplaced (or something). It refers to the Doctor talking to Rose about the way the TARDIS travels, and I just don't find this conversation in the book. The TARDIS plays a very minor part in this story (very beginning, slight mention in the middle, and they leave at the end). Rose and the Doctor are separated for approximately 200 pages out of 253, so there wasn't much opportunity to have this discussion. Does anyone know where this might have come from? I hate to just delete it if it actually goes with a different book (moving it would be easier). Gwydionmom 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winner Takes All

Added the plot, some continuity, and another pop culture reference. Gwydionmom 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Deviant Strain

I've added the plot, and a bit of continuity. Gwydionmom 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Resurrection Casket

Now has a plot, continuity, and a pop reference. Gwydionmom 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Stealers of Dreams

Plot, more continuity, and pop culture added - no more stubs for the 9th Doctor books! Gwydionmom 21:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Release Date

New Series Adventures gives the release date for the three September releases as the 6th of September, however the pages themselves state they will be released on the 9th of September. Would someone clear this up? --Thelb4 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Covers

Sting of the Zygons and Wooden Heart (Doctor Who) need covers adding to their articles, please.(Black Dalek 17:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] 'Set between'

What's the source for these? At least one of them is completely incorrect as Sick Building includes a reference to The Family of Blood, yet the page states that it is set between 42 and Human Nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking that. Since we have Doctor Who story chronology (which references the placements), I think we should remove them. StuartDD ( t • c ) 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canon

I have replaced an unsourced, POV statement regarding the canon of the novels. It's not traditional to view the books as non-canon; it's traditional to view them as being in a "grey area", thanks to the BBC not doing what Paramount did with Star Trek and declaring what is canon and what isn't. The statement also contradicted the content of the main article, which is linked here. Have any other NSA books been referenced since Boom Town? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks a lot better now. I don't know about any other tie-ins, as I haven't read the novels. StuartDD contributions 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Donna Noble novels?

Is it worth mentioning in the article the fact that, for some reason, the announced novels for 2008 do not feature the current companion, Donna Noble? I only just noticed this and at first I thought it might be an error, but at least one of the books based upon its title alone can be confirmed as a Martha novel. Anyone know why this might be the case? 68.146.41.232 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone make this edit for me? (mobile user)

Trying to edit the whole article would crash my phone, and this bit isn't in any section: In the part of the opening paragraph mentioning Gallifreyan numerals, could someone please add that the chapters are numbered in the same way, and that thirteen is always mis-represented with the Gallifreyan numeral for eleven? Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 05:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2009 novels

Can't find a source other than Amazon but the three novels being released on January 9 2009 are as follows:

Beautiful Chaos by Gary Russell

"The Doctor and Donna battle an ancient force from the Dark Times - the latest in the bestselling Doctor Who fiction range from BBC Books. Donna Noble is back home in London, catching up with her family and generally giving them all the gossip about her journeys. Her grandfather is especially overjoyed - he's discovered a new star and had it named after him. He takes the Doctor, as his special guest, to the naming ceremony. But the Doctor is suspicious about some of the other changes he can see in Earth's heavens. Particularly that bright star, right there. No not that one, that one, there, on the left... The world's population is slowly being converted to a new path, a new way of thinking. Something is coming to Earth, an ancient force from the Dark Times. Something powerful, angry, and all-consuming... Featuring the Doctor and Donna as played by David Tennant and Catherine Tate in the hit series from BBC Television."

The Eyeless by Lance Parkin

"In the latest of the bestselling Doctor Who novels, the Doctor battles a mysterious weapon on a barren, war-torn planet - and this time he's all on his own. At the heart of the ruined city of Arcopolis is the Fortress. It's a brutal structure placed here by one of the sides in a devastating intergalactic war that's long ended. Fifteen years ago, the entire population of the planet was killed in an instant by the weapon housed deep in the heart of the Fortress. Now only the ghosts remain. The Doctor arrives, and determines to fight his way past the Fortress's automatic defences and put the weapon beyond use. But he soon discovers he's not the only person in Arcopolis. What is the true nature of the weapon? Is the planet really haunted? Who are the Eyeless? And what will happen if they get to the weapon before the Doctor? The Doctor has a fight on his hands. And this time he's all on his own. Featuring the Doctor as played by David Tennant in the hit series from BBC Television."

The Story Of Martha by Dan Abnett

"The full story of Martha Jones' 'lost year' helping defeat the Master - the latest in the bestselling Doctor Who Fiction range from BBC Books. For a year, while the Master ruled over Earth, Martha Jones travelled the world telling people stories about the Doctor. She told people of how the Doctor has saved them before, and how he will save them again. This is that story. It tells of Martha's travels from her arrival on Earth as the Toclafane attacked and decimated the population through to her return to Britain to face the Master. It tells how she spread the word and told people about the Doctor. The story of how she survived that terrible year. But it's more than that. This is also a collection of the stories she tells - the stories of adventures she had with the Doctor that we haven't heard about before. The stories that inspired and saved the world... Featuring the Doctor and Martha as played by David Tennant and Freema Agyeman in the hit series from BBC Television."

Until we find a more impeccable source. Not that I doubt it for a moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockwork Apricot (talk • contribs) 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They are the December Boxing Day releases, not January and a number of Doctor Who websites have confirmed them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.115.65 (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)