Doctor Who is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 1, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

	This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:British TV shows project

Template:WP1.0

Archives
October 2001 – November 2004 December 2004 – July 2005 July 2005 – March 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 - September 2007

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Can we have a section about the various mishaps in the time laws?

I know that the Face of Bo and that skin-faced lady both premiered in the start of the 2005 series at the end of earth as she dies off, yet a season later, they meet again on new earth. Yet no one knew eachother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Face of Bo and Cassandra didn't have any contact in New Earth. Cassandra's reappearance, however, has been explained, as while her 'body' was destroyed, her brain was preserved. No, there was no explanaition beyond that, but there usually isn't. Aside from that, on New Earth, Cassandra spent the majority of her time in other people's bodies. There's not really anything to be explained there as a breach of Time Law. -Leeson 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the year five billion and twenty-three, after the destruction of the Earth, the Doctor takes Rose to the New Earth. There, he meets an old friend (Face of Bo) in a mysterious hospital where the Sisters of Plenitude have a cure for everything. But who is lurking in the basement of the hospital? (Cassandra) And what has she done with Rose?" Yup, Cassandra reappears in New Earth, along with Bo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mix Bouda-Lycaon (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying they were both in that episode (Leeson was saying that Cassandra didn't meet the face of Boe whilst herself. That aside, I don't see any breach in time laws..."New Earth" was set later in time than "The End of the World". No problems with them meeting each other. Gwinva 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an explanation of how Cassandra came back beyond the preservation of the brain. Her new "body" was make from skin from her back. Prompting Rose to comment that she is talking out of her backside.

Wasn't this heavily implied by the little girl calling him grandfather and the discussion about him building TARDIS?Glennh70 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the first Doctor's tenure, the Doctor's race and ancestry weren't considered; the idea of Gallifrey and regenerations only came about when Hartnell's illness meant he could no longer play the role but the TV series was at the height of its popularity. Rather than trying to cast someone who looked similar and hoping nobody would notice (the James Bond school of recasting), the writers hit upon the clever idea of explaining a casting change through "regeneration."

However, the movies were made well before that ever became necessary, and in (I assume) an attempt to bring something new to the stories (which were otherwise just remakes of TV episodes), they came up with the idea of making it explicit that he was an affable grandfatherly human inventor who came up with a time machine, and expanding on that. After all, there wasn't anything at that point that said he wasn't.

If this is hard enough to discover through the articles that someone had to ask about it here, I suppose someone should write a section making it clearer. —Robotech_Master 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making him a human in the movies also meant that they could do away with any background story and get on with the plot much quicker. It was made clear already in the TV-series that the Doctor and Susan weren't humans. The TV-movie added to the canon that the Doctor's half human, but it's never been touched upon later. Davhorn 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have made the series 1 scripts into a book and it says clearly on the side '2005' saying that there would be another one, but there isn't! Does anyone know why they haven't made series 2 into a script book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlr6 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC) They made a series 2 scripts book and it is called Doctor Who: Inside Story[reply]

There's been some back-and-forth editing in the Companions section over whether Liz Shaw is an official "companion" because she didn't actually travel anywhere with the Doctor. But I'm not convinced that "companion" has any official meaning anyway... isn't this a term that fandom has placed on the "supporting actor/actress" role in the series? Can someone cite a reference as to whether it should even be said whether a character is an "official companion" or not? Any other thoughts? --Shubopshadangalang 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole subject is rediculous. A companion is someone who accompanies you. So as long as she follows the Dr for any amount of time. She qualifies as a companion. This whole section about who calls them what "companion", "assistant", etc... should be removed, so as this article doesn't sound so petty.--156.101.9.1 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She "follows the Doctor"? such a general term could then apply to pretty much any character that accompanies the Doctor.Mmm commentaries (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's a whole separate article on the term "companion". One can easily link to it from this article to discover the meanings of the word. Otherwise, it's not relevant other than to label the "supporting characters". I've removed most of the verbage from the main article, and moved some of it to the "companion" article. -Shubopshadangalang (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the doctor who logo page link deleted from this page? Mrmccollough 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted- it was moved to the "See also" section. I don't think the link deserves it's own section, and definately not level 2. --OZOO (What?) 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about an Ext link to either or both of these?Zir 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doctor Who Radio Times covers
• Doctor Who Radio Times covers on TV & Radio Bits

Any chance that this series will air on public broadcasting in the U.S.? I've never heard of this series before, but it sounds very interesting (like a British verision of Star Trek or something) and I don't have cable or satellite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on Ip's talk page - please do not use Talk page as forum. StuartDD _{contributions} 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone else has a similar question, this topic is covered in Doctor Who in America. 23skidoo (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the page be merged with The Doctor Who logo page, however due to thesize of the article, should it not be left separate???78.150.71.26 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think History of Doctor Who would be more appropriate to merge to. StuartDD _{contributions} 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable Stuart. Pictures would help the article greatly. mattbuck (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, pictures can be found at the link in the artyicle, tough copyright would be needed...78.150.35.66 (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this huge blank space at the top of the History section? I click on "Last" in the most recent entry on the "Edit History" page and it doesn't show. Also, there is no hint of it in the edit window when I bring one up. Yet it stays there on the regular article page. What gives? Ted Watson (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diamond logo image was causing it. The text would not start until the image was placed and the image was being pushed down by the infobox above. It didn't appear in the section edit window as it didn't have the infobox present. I've moved the image down one section for now to eliminate the whitespace. AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the hidden text additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted we have actually lost a number of sites since the great purge attempt last June [1] .They may well have been removed for a good reason but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the talk pages to remove them and apparently if I try to re-insert them they might be reverted on the basis of additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted .

Just a point I thought should be brought up . Garda40 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what sites do you want to insert? --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or reinsert? Klippa (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro "John Barrowman will be filming for the show after Christmas 2007, reprising his role as Captain Jack Harkness". Can he possibly be reprising his role, given that he must have been playing it almost without a break since the beginning of 2005? Klippa (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• His involvement in series 4 has been confirmed in multiple media. 23skidoo (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think he's saying that the wrong word has been used. To be honest, I can't think of a better phrase to use myself. StuartDD _{contributions} 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Continuing"? Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sound's good. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing a bit obliquely. Sorry. Yes. I just meant that he's not really reprising the role if he's played it in 26 episodes of Torchwood and 8 episodes of Doctor Who in about 36 months. I should've made a suggestion myself, but, yes, 'continuing' resolves my concern. Klippa (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I misunderstood your question. 23skidoo (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think "reprising" sounds better - but what is the purpose of all this "latest production info" stuff anyway? Isn't this paragraph just meant to say who is currently in the TARDIS - in which case it would be better to just dump everything after "Catherine Tate is due to reprise her role of Donna Noble in the new series"? We certainly haven't kept, for example, a note that Liz Sladen was a guest star in S2 episode School reunion, as she's apparently going to be for one episode of S4. 81.109.71.38 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the paragraph has maybe got too long, especially now that someone's just added that "Sarah in Series 4" bit. We could just go with mentioning Donna. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with those who see this not as a reprise but a continuous role. Reprise generally suggests a role is resumed after a period of time, but Barrowman has played the role continuously since Torchwood's debut. The Sarah S4 thing is a hoax according to one editor; not sure how that might figure into the discussion. (Hope I will be forgiven for changing the heading - reprisal is like retaliation and it just seemed wrong!)Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The all-time highest chart placing for an episode of Doctor Who is fifth, for episode two of The Ark in Space in 1975." I would guess that's now out-of-date and Voyage of the Damned has beaten it. Is there confirmation anywhere though? Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think final figures are due in the next few days - modern audience data includes "timeshifted viewers" (i.e. those who record and watch later) and this takes some time to add to the figures. The "overnight results" don't factor this in and can confuse (although the shows that tend to lose viewer between the overnights & finals are things like news bulletins and the lottery results where very few people record to watch later). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not in favor of separating the so-called "classic" series and the "revived" series (as far as I'm concerned they're one show with a 16-year hiatus between seasons), in this case I do think it's prudent to handle the ratings separately between the two eras. The way ratings are measured, and the way audiences viewed the show in 2007 is nothing like the way they viewed the show in 1975. 23skidoo (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox, for "format" it says Drama. Wouldn't Melodrama be more accurate? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've ever heard DW described as a melodrama. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's not the most obvious description. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was described as such by Philip Hinchcliffe on a DVD commentary - Talons of Weng Chiang I think, but I'll check that. The focus on actions and events at the expense of character development is a characteristic of melodrama though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great respec' to Mr Hinchliffe, but I doubt if one commentary on one episode doth a definition make. Besides, for such a long-lasting series, I'd argue that character development for the major characters is more slow-burning and somewhat limited in any case. After all, we get a good idea of each of the companions, say, from their first appearances, and their character development takes place across the series arcs against the background of the action. Meanwhile, signing your posts reduces annoying edit conflicts. Cheers --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops re signing, I seem to be having a bad day for it! Shall we agree to leaving off the "melodrama" discussion unless a good ref for it comes up? Otherwise it's the dreaded Original Research if we go by our own impressions. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]