Talk:Doomsday (Doctor Who)

Music

Does anyone have any information on the music for the final reunion scene on Bad Wolf Bay? The one with the female warbling and the piano going plink... plink... plink... continually on the same note? Because I think it is fab, and would happily purchase it ;) --Harris 21:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's slow and solemn, it's possibly Flavia's theme (or a variation). It's used when thinks get too time-lordy. Will (message me!) 21:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a somewhat uptempo version of Flavia's theme, although in none of the materials I've seen has anybody identified it as such. If you want to hear it for yourself it's currently being played on the official site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho). -- MisterHand 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That photo of Rose is distinctly unflattering. It looks like she has a moustache. Vitriol 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's another great Murray Gold piece. It's mentioned in the commentary (Julie Gardner says she was humming it for two weeks after hearing it the first time; I know the feeling!). If you go to the BBC Doctor Who page, hit News and Contact Us, you'll see this bit: "What was that music on the beach? It was specially composed by Murray Gold. We've still no news of a soundtrack album." Shame. I'd buy it too. It's my ringtone at the moment. :-) --DudeGalea 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"We've still no news of a soundtrack album." Bugger! I would buy it in an instant. Doctor Who is very popular, and the music stands out as gorgeous, so why not profit and please the fans? It bewilders me. Is there a rights issue being worked out? TransUtopian 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good news, everyone. From BBC today: "We're pleased to tell you that Murray Gold's wonderful soundtrack to Doctor Who will be making its way to CD in the near future. BBC Worldwide are working with the composer to release the highlights from his Doctor Who scores on CD. While we don't have a release date, we felt we'd tell you as soon as possible. Thanks to everyone for the deluge of emails about the "singy lady", the "beach thing (i cried)", and, of course, the theme." --DudeGalea 16:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete's World's "Torchwood"

Doesn't the presence of the Torchwood institute in the alternate universe where Rose, Pete, Mickey & Jackie were stranded; confirm the existence of an alternate Doctor in that universe? Torchwood being founded because of the Doctor (it being an anagram for 'Doctor Who' kind of gives it that mystique quality that makes it rather counter intuitive for an alternate purpose in the alternate reality of an institute so-named) 67.5.147.88 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not confirm the existence of the Doctor. Just as the existence of Rose Tyler in 'this' universe did not confirm her existence in the alternate one. --Kwekubo 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the existence of a person one place wouldn't indicate the existence of the same person in another reality, for the very sake of the fact that an alternate universe implies that 1 ≠ 1, i.e. its very function is being "alternate". But the activities of one individual in a self-contained universe should imply that existence of said individual, torchwood is evidence of the activities of an individual *if* being what it is as an institute intrinsically denotes the same quality for being there in the alternate universe, name et al. being evidence of existence via its modus operandi. 67.5.157.236 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kwekubo, as The Doctor mentioned in Rise of the Cybermen, Timelords would duck in and out of the alternate universes "and be home in time for tea". Thus, "Pete's World's" Torchwood could have been set up in response to a different time traveller; the Doctor from before the Time Lords died; or a totally different alien threat. Liyster 07:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Also remember that, in universe, Torchwood was named after the house, not after the Doctor, so there'd be nothing particularly counter-intuitive to the people in the story about it. --86.144.60.11 08:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Torchwood in Pete's world seems to be much less secret, so it could have been set up much earlier. Or it could have been set up in response to something far more harmless and ordinary, and grown to encompass alien activity. Maybe it's well known as an organisation, but some of its operations are secret and involve aliens. There's not really any evidence for any theory, but I'm just trying to illustrate that there are plenty of other ways it could have been set up that are nothing to do with Tooth and Claw. RobbieG 08:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong here. GraemeLeggett 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it belongs here, haven't you ever read a talk page before?--71.247.107.146 11:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In that it doesn't help the article, no. GraemeLeggett 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does, where it serves a purpose in refuting an earlier suggestion. And it's a fair point: there's no reason to believe that the only reason Torchwood can exist is if the Doctor inspired its creation. For all we know, Victoria was already mulling the idea over in her head, and all the Doctor did was change the focus of her idea; maybe rush it into production a little sooner. Maybe in this universe her husband never died, and he set up Torchwood as he'd always intended to, along with the guy who made the "telescope" at Torchwood House. All this speculation serves to illustrate is that the idea of an alternate Torchwood is not necessarily contradictory with anything we've seen, and that it does not necessarily imply the existence of an alternate Doctor. Neither does anything negate that idea; it just isn't necessary, is all. Therefore, there's no need to bring it up. --71.139.18.66 01:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me for saying so, but you don't make it clear what 'speculation' you refer to. I hope you're not complaining about my speculation, because if you are, you've missed the point of it rather. I was just trying to illustrate that if we do allow speculation, there are plenty of ways that Torchwood could have been founded that don't involve a parallel Doctor. That's why, 67.5.147.88, we can't allow such speculation on the main article. RobbieG 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it came across as speculation, but my intention was to fish out a plot hole for the possible inclusion into the article of whether it would be as unlikely as the episode made out for Rose to see the Doctor again, but since it has to do with the unfolding of the story I suppose it does fall under speculation, besides being very tentative; but story line contradiction could always be added to the trivia section. 67.5.147.136 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides... speculation is half the fun with Doctor Who. -Neural 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Graeme is making the point (albeit with great brevity!) that as fun as speculation is, wikipedia isn't the right place for it. Not even on talk pages, because the point of them is to serve as debate about what should go into the main article; they're not supposed to be used as a general discussion forum. Sure, most of us violate that from time to time, but it's a good point. Speculation should be saved for fan forums like Outpost Gallifrey (well, I wonder if many of those people are actually fans, given the amount of sniping that appears every week, but I digress...).

Notwithstanding all that, I also take RobbieG's point that he was simply using speculation to demonstrate how much speculating could actually be done, and hence why it shouldn't be included in the main article. --DudeGalea 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tanelorn appears in several of Michael Moorcock's parallel universes - are there any more examples of such multiples? Jackiespeel 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Slightly un-related but still relevent to this topic: How come Earth even still exists in the parallel dimension if there is no Doctor? Over the years Earth has been invaded by innumerable aliens with nefarious intent, so who dispatched them? I can only think of three reasons for their earth's continued existence. ### a) Some Defender of the Weak (i.e. Doctor). ### b) No-one wants to invade their Earth - in which case what is their Torchwoods job? ### c) They've always been able to repel the defenders unaided (so why couldn't they handle the cybermen with the Doctor?). - User:Moriarty 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Or d) the split is 'comparatively recent' - some time after airships became viable (though planes might have also evolved) - and the characters speak with the same accents in both worlds (how quickly do accents/languages drift?). Jackiespeel 21:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, it's better we just leave it be and not start asking questions like this, otherwise we might as well start asking questions like "How did the exact same sperm fertalise the exact same egg to make the exact same people exsist on this universe?" The_B 14:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicely said!

The Doctor never does get his psychic paper back, does he?

Wonder if they wrote it out on purpose, the same way they tired to write out the sonic screwdriver way back when. Was kind of taking the fun out of it if all he has to do is flash a blank bit of paper and people suddenly accept that he's who he says he is--71.247.243.152 04:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't they also "write out" Rose's superphone at one stage ;) He'll probably either magically have it back or just make a new one. I think it's more useful for the production team to have around than to be completely without it- they could always have someone challenge his stated identity (like in the Long Game) if they don't want it to be a quick-fix, but then it's still there if they need it. --86.144.60.11 09:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He could easily have a spare in the TARDIS. Alternatively, they could switch to a different magic gizmo next year (though the sonic screwdriver will likely remain) or just have him get along without it, to have an additional change from the Rose years. He got along fine without it for 26 years (900 Time Lord spans). TransUtopian 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in rose's stolen lab coat, which she threw on the sphere room floor, or alternitivly in Singh's coat. Either way, he probebly noticed it was gone when he checked his coat, and went back for it. 84.69.2.42 21:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack had psychic paper when we first saw him, so it's not a unique artefact. 84.69.0.192 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's probably a whole ream of it in the TARDIS. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It returns in Series 3. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Parallel Earth

Yes, yes, speculation isn't appropriate on wikipedia talk pages, and so on - but is it worth noting the previous appearance of a parallel earth in Inferno? The parallel earth in Inferno shows that Britain is technologically advanced compared to "our" world, and that Britain is a republic. Might Peteworld be a version of the Inferno earth in which they don't destroy the universe?

Incidentally, Torchwood probably exists in both worlds because the point of divergence is later than the creation of Torchwood. So, technically, the Doctor that exists in Peteworld is the SAME Doctor because the worlds were different AFTER that time rather than before. Matthew Platts 18:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That would mean there are two doctors, since from at every point of divergence those who led alternate time lines exist independently in the other universe.

But back to whether such talk is appropriate, they are for matters of the trivia section; if there is a logical fallacy in the story, it can be added as a fact of contradiction to the story. Another example which is arguable is the Dårlig Ulv Stranden / "Bad Wolf Bay" appearing in the alternate universe. It brings the question of how far the time matrix of the TARDIS; which wasn't created to travel between alternate universes, could have given Rose the power from staring into its 'heart' the ability to make sure a name appears in an alternate universe; or rather could this have been simply a coincedence unconnected to her power, maybe a higher fate? or maybe it was before the point of divergence at when Rose had the power of the "vortex running through her head" and could 'see every potential outcome', so was able to add that in this universe which altered the other; BUT the point of divergence for that particular alternate universe was BEFORE 'the parting of ways'. Its a factor of discontinuity and is perfectly viable for discussion on a talk page about an episode at wikipedia, because one never knows what might been found as viable to add to the article in that respect. 67.5.147.136 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning there was a parallel Earth also in Inferno would probably be okay for the Trivia section. Are there other instances? TransUtopian 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall a rumor somewhere that Billie Piper wanted to play a female version of the doctor, and that RTD had plans to bring her back to who in the distant future, maybe she'll become that universes' equivalent of the doctor, and find some sort of means to travel in time (something found by alternate Torchwood maybe?) and in some way or another inspire the creation of alternate Torchwood the same way the doctor did in (our?) universe, maybe a crossover with the new Torchwood series? but that's idle speculation--71.247.243.152 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember a report mentioning Billie's desire to play the Doctor or see a female Doctor too, but I don't remember where. That's bugging me now. :) TransUtopian 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The report was on the Newsround website. It is not on there anymore though.

Goodbye Scene Accent

Is it my imagination or does David Tennant break into his natural accent during the goodbye scene? Matthew Platts 20:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Parallel Universes

The Doctor says that they cannot meet again - for the second time.

Three people (Rose, Jackie and Mickey) from our-universe reside in parallel universe, and the Cybermen and others crossed in the reverse direction - so there is a possibility of it happening again.

Alternatively they end up in a third parallel universe and avoid any paradoxes...

Jackiespeel 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on Outpost Gallifrey rather than wikipedia??? :-) quercus robur 22:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just parking a few ideas - rather than getting involved in the Dr Who fanfic.

TV series producers can #always# find a way out of reviving dead or "parked elsewhere" characters if needs be - see the patron saint of such events, Bobby Ewing.

Jackiespeel 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

For the love of god prune the plot!

I can understand there should be a details episode summary for key episodes such as this, but the plot summary just goes on and on and on, it's not easily readable and would take a good few minutes to plow through properly. It doesn't need to detail every single thing that happens in the episode word for word. 83.151.197.97 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New caption

• "This is not war, this is pest control!"

Just wondering if I could change the caption from the "EXTERMINATE Delete" to that nice quote from Dalek Sec, "This is not war, this is pest control". It matches the picture nicely, and also even though the Daleks shout, we could just emphasise the loudness by putting it in bold. Comics 11:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the scene that uses that line, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, but they are attacking each other, and from the Daleks POV, this would be just pest control, compared with what they've fought. Comics(UTC)

Nah, don't really buy it. I know it's a funny line, but it doesn't fit the tone, somehow. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

At least I asked on the discussion page before putting it in the article. Comics(UTC)

Let's not forget that the Daleks of the Order of Skaro were all fitted with personality in order to conjour up ways to defeat their enemies, although it doesn't fit the tone, a sense of humour no matter how twisted would be a by-product of personality.

Plot (deus ex machina)

(spoiler warning, though at this point i don't know if it matters)

This was a great episode, it actually made me cry. But I don't get how Mr. Tyler would know exactly when and where to jump to the other Earth just in time to catch and save Rose. Is it worth pointing this out somewhere? (Corby 13:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

That's not really deus ex machina. Pete might have just been lucky, he might not have known at all, but its still not deus ex machina - it's reasonably believable luck. Now if Rose had been sucked into the void and then miraculously spat out on the Pete's World side with no apparent explanation, THAT would be deus ex machina. --GracieLizzie 14:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pete's timing could have been luck, but he materialises with his arms outstretched. Unless people jumping dimensions can see the world for a second before they actually materialise? Damiancorrigan 14:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! People have been known to have their arms outstretched for mere balance's sake. He may have been anticipating a strong wind upon his arrival and had his arms ready to grab onto something. So it could still be luck. (Granted, sometimes actors and actresses give away their intended actions by "telegraphing with their movements" on a subconcious level.) I don't know about you folks, but I've seen a lot of isntances when characters had their eyes closed ahead of time, because the person playing the character was preparing for what was coming next, even though logically the character was supposed to be totally surprised. I blame it on rehearsal. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Fact check requested

(Another spoiler warning, but as noted above it probably doesn't matter) I think it is a notable continuity fact that this is the first episode in the history of Doctor Who in which the Doctor is actually shown weeping. I've seen every existing episode of the original and new series and I cannot think of any other occasion in which he's shown crying, thought the Ninth Doctor comes close when he tells Rose "You were fantastic" in Parting of the Ways. Before I add this, however, I thought I'd ask if anyone knows of another occasion, in case my memory is faulty. 23skidoo 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

He sheds a single tear in The End of the World, when Jabe says that she knows what happened to his people and she's so sorry. But I agree that Doomsday is the first time we see the Doctor weep, and that's probably noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dårlig Ulv Stranden?

Not sure that's a correct translation for "Bad Wolf Bay". In Danish, at least, "dårlig" is used as in "bad stomach". If the meaning is as in "bad wolf", the word would be "slemme" - not sure if that's the same in Norwegian. And "stranden" is "the beach". "Bugt" would be "bay". So, in Danish at least, I would expect the translation to be more like "Slemme Ulv Bugt" ... Daen 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Google translates it as bad wolf beach... Andrew Marsden (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bad" is indeed a correct translation of the word "dårlig" but, it's not bad as in "wicked" but as in "not good" or "inferior". "Stranden" means, as in Danish, "the beach". If one should follow the line of the translation of Little Red Riding Hood, it would be "Stygge ulv bukten" or, more grammatically sound, "Styggeulvsbukten" (although "slem", as Andrew suggest, is certainly a good alternative). Pilum (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Parallel Torchwood

I've remove the following paragraph:

• There is a parallel Torchwood in the parallel London. In "Tooth and Claw", Queen Victoria creates Torchwood after the Doctor's visit. He never visited the parallel earth before "Rise of the Cybermen", so, there should not be a parallel Torchwood. A possible explanation for the parallel Torchwood, is that in one episode, the Doctor says, "Each choice creates a new world." It is possible that when Queen Victoria decided to create the first Torchwood Institute, a new world was created, the same as our world is at that exact moment. Other decisions would have created the differences between the two worlds.

This is original research. It is possible that in removing this paragraph I have removed material that, shorn of the speculation, might belong in the article. --Tony Sidaway 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Two things I would like to mention: 1) Under continuity, it is stated that Jack Harkness leaves the series in an episode featuring the Daleks, namely The Parting of the Ways, however I believe that he reappears in Utopia. Is this so, and if so, worth an edit? And the second's more of a general comment: why is it that the Doctor is faced so many times with the choice of Rose or the universe?--84.68.45.78 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

complete speculation

I propose the next item is removed from "The Void"

Because it is quite speculative.

"The Doctor states that travel between universes was impossible until the Daleks broke down the walls between worlds with the void ship. This may explain the crack in time that the TARDIS fell through in "Rise of the Cybermen" to reach the parallel Earth in the first place."

Robin.lemstra 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not complete speculation in that this is a sequel to the first, and therefore anything described in this story, "cracks in between universes", can reasonably be applied to the first story, "cracks in between universes" (unless stated otherwise). DonQuixote 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research::

   Robin.lemstra 14:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Moot point, the continuity part has been reorganised. Will ^(talk) 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review

OK, so I understand most of the article gets its information from two external links. But the average reader doesn't know that. The lead should also be rewritten to better reflect the whole article, including a plot description, (get rid of that useless synopsis section). The plot could be shortened too, and there are no reviews (eg. IGN, who reviewed every season two and three episode).

Still, it's fine apart from that, and I hope other such Doctor Who articles can improve to this level before the notability inquisition comes in. Alientraveller 17:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to shorten the plot without removing quite a bit of context, trust me. Will ^(talk) 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pass

OK, the renom has passed. Alientraveller 21:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote does not make sense

I wanted to get that kind of throbbing, sort of hurt, sound of quite emotional rock, because I
thought that's Rose would do if she was hurting and ran up to her bedroom and locked herself 
in her room and had a good old cry, really."

Above is the quote made by Murray Gold, copied exactly as it appears in the article. It needs correcting as it does not make sense (possibly vandalism??) Does anyone know what this is supposed to say? yettie0711 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes more sense without the typo -- it's probably "quiet emotional rock". DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. It makes sense with "quite" as well. Don't know what I was sniffing when I read that. Anyway, what he meant was that the music reflects how she felt during that scene, which is exactly like if she locked herself in her room and had a good crying session. DonQuixote (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot Hole, no wait - Plot CHASM

It's very hard to mention this without going into a huge rant at how awful this episode was, but should it not be in the article that the very crux of the whole void-stuff device, and thus the whole point of the climax, renders Pete's rescuing of Rose completely non-sensical? Can that be mentioned in a neutral and non-OR manner? Perhaps a reviewer has picked up on this at some point and that could be sourced? U-Mos (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a plot hole since it doesn't affect the plot. It's more like a rabbit out of a hat (or a slight deus ex machina) in that it's there to save the heroine from death. It's like what happened at the end of The Doctor's Daughter. Chalk it up to artistic licence. DonQuixote (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That can be put down to good luck and artstic license, but the fact the TARDIS was not sucked through is a plot hole. Also, the fact that the Cybermen outside the Taj Mahal were pulled upwards in the sky - which is away from the 'Torchwood Tower' - could be considered a plot hole - although this sort of discussion is more relevant for a Doctor Who forum than a Wikipedia article. Personally, I think to describe the episode as 'awful' is perhaps a little harsh - although I agree that the conclusion is rather messy and badly written. Despite this - from what I can tell - it is the most popular series finale and one of the most popular episodes, although that is probably purely because it gave fans (new and old) the Cybermen vs Daleks episode they had long been waiting for. Alienturnedhuman (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mickey as companion

Seeing as Rose is counted as a companion for her role in "Turn Left" and Martha is counted as one in "Sontaran Strategem"/"Poison Sky", Mickey should be counted as one for these this two-parter. Ophois (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is stretching it really far. Mickey was not a traveling companion in Doomsday. — Edokter • Talk • 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither were Rose or Martha in the episodes mentioned above. And neither was Jack in "The Empty Child", nor Astrid in "Voyage of the Damned". Ophois (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

They have earned their status as a companion, either in following consecutive episodes (Jack), By statement of the producers (Astrid), or by accreditation (Rose). Sarah Jane was also not a companion in School Reunion, but was in The Stolen Earth / Journey's End. In short; a companion's appearence in one episode does not make it a companion in all other episodes. — Edokter • Talk • 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying to add him for all other episodes. He is credited as a companion before this two-parter, and in "Journey's End", fulfilling pretty much the same role in this episode as in the latter. If he is to be considered a companion in "Journey's End", then he should be in this two-parter. The same with Sarah Jane. Ophois (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have a companion role here, and I'm not too sure about his role in Journey's End either. — Edokter • Talk • 21:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Martha doesn't have a companion role in "Sontaran Strategem". Ophois (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again... accreditation. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in the episode does it say that she is a companion? It merely says that she is a star of the episode. Ophois (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems that I'm being difficult. But it doesn't make sense to have two returning companions to be labelled differently, just because one of the actors isn't labelled as a star of the episode. Ophois (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ophois on this one. I wouldn't credit him as a companion for Arm of Ghosts but he plays just as much the part of The Doctor's companion as Rose does. It seems right that he should be credited as a companion on this particular episode. BionicMK (BionicMK) 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Existence of Torchwood in the alternate reality

I've seen the episode Rise of the Cybermen recently in my country, and this discussion about the existence of a parallel seems out of place for me. So I went to the article of that episode and I copy this fragment from the Continuity section:

"There are two Torchwood references in this episode, one in the news report that Rose watches on her mobile phone which mentions the Torchwood Institute, and during the party, when Pete Tyler identifies a party-goer as "the guy from Torchwood". This implies that the Institute is either more public on this parallel Earth or is not the same type of organisation (or both)."

It's obvious, Torchwood exists, although it cannot be the same organisation as it is in 'this' reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.136.171 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to "Canary Wharf" or "One Canada Square".

It is said by the person that reverted my change that "it's emphatically One Canada Square, which is known to the public far and large as Canary Wharf (Tower)"

Which may be true, but "far and large" doesn't stretch to this small part of Australia, where I'd never heard of Canary Wharf. So I clicked the link labeled "Canary Wharf" and was presented with information about some building IN Canary Wharf, rather than about Canary Wharf itself.

Perhaps the link(s) should be Canary Wharf (Tower). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.106.169 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the whole plot is set in that building, while being referred to as "the battle of Canary Wharf", it is reasonable to link to the building. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Continuity section problem

This section does not have any cites to independent reliable secondary sources. Do any secondary sources give this material significant discussion? If not, the subsection should be removed. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Removed by Sceptre (talk · contribs) = [1] Thank you very much, most appreciated, Cirt (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

All Skaros or just Dalek Caan?

I watched it just now, and it's pretty clear that only Dalek Caan escaped through the emergency temporal shift, just before it sucks in the ark. I believe he's the only one of the four that shows up in a later episode.Jeff (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, after further investigation, it appears I was wrong, although we do only see one of them trigger the temporal shift. I've edited my edit.Jeff (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit July 2011

Hi

During the opyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Conception

• "he didn't know when asked by Collinson on the commentary," (para 3) - what is the commentary that is being referred to?

Filming

• I have linked some regions which may or not be necessary, feel free to revert if necessary.

Broadcast and pre-airing media blackout

• I have added an explanation of what the Fear Factor is, as well as that the Fear Factor website does not have a fear rating as per the beginning of the sentence, which describes them not being allowed to see it.

Lead

• The lead says "... Doctor Who episodes since the show's revival.", whilst the opening lead sentence simply mentions the "... final episode in the second series of ..." without clarifying that this is the second series since the shows revival, as technically the second series was List_of_Doctor_Who_serials#Season 2 (1964–1965).

I hope this was satisfactory; but if there are any contentious edits feel free to remove them. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On the series issue, the 2006 series is commonly known as series 2, whereas the 1964 series is known as season 2. It's an idiosyncratic practice unique to Doctor Who. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Second series?

"Doomsday" is the thirteenth and final episode in the second series of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who". "Second series"? that can't be right. The second series would have been in the 1960s. Adpete (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see the comment immediately above. But this article is for a general audience, not Doctor Who buffs, so if Doctor Who has "idiosyncratic" naming convention then this should be properly documented and linked to. Adpete (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Donna as "The Bride"

I know she was credited as "The Bride" at the end of the episode but for the sake of purpose and just generally to be less confusing to those who don't know, why not just have Catherine Tate listed as Donna Noble anyway - we know who she is and what her name is and it just seems pointless to list her as something else. It's a bit like listing The Master's disguises as there own anogramed name instead of just listing Anthony Aniely. I think it should be changed personaly but you may dissagree. BionicMK (BionicMK) 00:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuity

I have removed the Continuity section added by 109.158.123.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for a third time today for the following reasons:

1. It does not connect any event from the plot to any other episode.
2. The concept of Daleks and Cybermen appearing together is already explored in the Production section.
3. Continuity sections are generally discouraged by WP:WHO/MOS, and not present in any featured episode article, which this article happens to be; including it will risk this article losing featured status.

Please do not make me revert a fourth time... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

1. The Continuity section wasn't added by me, it was added by User talk:Danniesen. Please get your facts right.
2. WP:WHO/MOS certainly provides sound advice regarding the use of Continuity sections in Doctor Who articles, including examples of the problems which can ocurr unless the subject is addressed with care. It doesn't generally discourage Continuity sections; it advises caution. You may find this discouraging, while other editors might just see it as one of the more enjoyably challenging aspects of Wikipedia editing. In any event, the advice certainly hasn't prevented the proliferation of Continuity sections in Doctor Who related articles, which would seem to render Doomsday an exception rather than the rule.
3. I will take your comment that a Continuity section doesn't appear in any featured article under advisement. The absence of this section isn't a prerequisite for achieving or retaining FA status, of course (unless you are arguing otherwise). Nevertheless, if you are using this to support your position then verification won't come amiss. Oh, and let's add 109.158.123.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) while I'm at it, in case anybody missed it the first time. Is that standard practice when addressing an IP editor now? Must have missed the memo. 109.158.123.179 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long. A cursory review of Featured Doctor Who Articles immediately turns up Partners in Crime, complete with Continuity section. It would thus appear that either fact checking isn't one of Edokter's strengths, or inconvenient truths will be casually cast aside and replaced with fabrication if they fail to support his position. It will be interesting to see if Patners in Crime now suffers any hasty revisionist intervention to expunge its Continuity section too. Let's hope not; we wouldn't want to risk the article losing featured status by changing the status quo in support of somebody's fatuous argument here. 109.158.123.179 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That one slipped by! It certainly wasn't there when the article was promoted. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it's easy for little things like actuality slip by in the rush to make grandiloquent claims. As to the result, I did not see that [[2]] coming. Oh, hang on a second. I take my hat off to you, Sir. Like watching an aerialist above the Grand Canyon leaping from foot to foot, with only a well-placed plimsole and a two inch thick wire rope separating existence from oblivion, your efforts to ensure that only your interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines shall prevail are breathtaking. Absolutely astonishing. 109.158.123.179 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In Need of Updating?

First, I apologize if this is a silly suggestion, as I am new to Wikipedia editing, so please bear with me and try to resist the urge to laugh me out of the forum, though do feel free to delete this if it does reek of being a newbie comment. Suggestions/timid proposals for updating:

1. "features Billie Piper's last appearance in the lead companion role as Rose Tyler"

should this read like the others with the use of "regular appearance" since she returns for the "Turn Left" trilogy? Or is that covered by "lead" companion role?

1. "The episode is one of the most popular Doctor Who episodes since the show's revival."

should there be an addition of "at the time of the initial publication of this article", or, "the time of the episodes release"?

Other things:

1. "...the Doctor's farewell to Rose, was filmed on 16 January 2006 ... Piper's last scene was Rose's reunion with the Doctor in "The Satan Pit" on 31 March,[9] but the shoot was rather emotional,[5] to the point there were several tears on set."

the wording of this seems misleading to me, because in the 2 parter of "The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit", there isn't a reunion between the Doctor and Rose, though it could be considered a final reunion between Tennant and Piper, which I could see as emotional for the actors but not the characters. Though i could be wrong.

1. And finally, for the dated material at the end, should that also have some parenthetical statement as I mentioned above, indicating the time period in which the stated statistics were true, as apposed to actually including all the data up to the present?

--SpeakNSpirit (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doomsday (Doctor Who). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713005614/http://uk.tv.ign.com/index/reviews.html?constraint.floor.article.overall_rating=10&constraint.return_all=is_true&sort.attribute=article.overall_rating&sort.order=desc to http://uk.tv.ign.com/index/reviews.html?constraint.floor.article.overall_rating=10&constraint.return_all=is_true&sort.attribute=article.overall_rating&sort.order=desc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421200137/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com:80/show/doctor_who/doomsday_2.php to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/doctor_who/doomsday_2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)