Talk:Last of the Time Lords

None of that has been confirmed - or at least referenced in the article. Although I'm sure the Time-Lord bit is true, the title could be read as contradicting it.--Rambutan (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Daleks

I think the Dalek stories are a bit too near the start of the series, if you ask me... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.146.0.208 (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Hmm I agree, but RTD said somewhere that there'd be no Daleks in the series finale this year, though he did say that last year too, so I don't know... --Sekhmort 19:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

possibly but now there is only 1 dalek left it looks unlikely (awwwwwwwwww!!!)--Secfrance 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Daleks but I read in a magazine (Toxic I think) that the Cybermen were supposed to be coming back. I would appreciate if anyone could confirm this from another source. (Surgeon when 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC))

Xmas special

If you look at the 31st-March news story on the OG News Page titled "Russell T Davies on BBC Radio", you'll see that it is confirmed.--Rambutan (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'Mountainside fight' confirmed by Tennant and Simm?

Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. To date, the only source mentioning a mountain, Tennant and Simm, is Caitlin Moran's article for the Times, in which Simm mentions filming a scene with Tennant "on top of this deserted mountain-top"; that's a world away from what's currently in this article. Either a further citation is needed, or the content ought to be removed/rephrased. Digby Tantrum 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This content needs deleting. I have read the article linked above and I think it is inadequate to support this speculative scene. Newspaper articles regardless of the publication have a tendancy to provoke rumour, and rumour cannot be represented as fact. --MrWez 07:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 Doctor Who Christmas Special

I have noticed that an article has been created for the 2007 Doctor Who Christmas special. For now, I have redirected this article to List of Doctor Who serials as its content is mostly speculation. It is currently too early to create this article as we do not have enough information about the story to write it - no doubt this information will appear on the Outpost Gallifrey news page and in DWM within the coming months, at which time we can write the article properly. (I believe a similar situation occurred last year - the proposed deletion failed, so a redirect is probably the best option.) Silver Nemesis 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

also - apparently kylie minogue has agreed to appear in xmas aspecial - no idea where source though - think it's one of the tabloids in the uk?Crescent 13:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RTD confirms above rumour is nonsense: see April 27 entry on Outpost Gallifrey news page. Gwinva 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Motion(less) Picture

I think "Last of the Timelords" was the title for the early 1990s version of the planned Doctor Who movie that famously never materialised. If so, should there be any information about it, either here or elsewhere, and also do we need to disambiguate the article title? Timrollpickering 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in The Nth Doctor by Jean-Marc Lofficier as one of the possible movie ideas. If we were to write an article about it, we should just group them together under an article dealing with the movie-licensing history of Doctor Who, which include Doctor Who Meets Scratchman. DonQuixote 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Saxon picture caption

Sigh... why is the "He's fire... and ice..." quote attached to a picture of Saxon? Do we have any kind of confirmation that the quote is either (a) about Saxon or (b) spoken by him? Kelvingreen 19:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To have the picture of him tapping his fingers on the table would be nice (although I suspect it's from the sound of drums). (Black Dalek 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)).

It's not that well known, unfortunately, but Wikipedia is presently awash with unlicensed images that should be removed on policy grounds if not on legal grounds. The precise reasons to remove that image are:

1. the image has been selected for high quality (see the file history)
2. the image's use in the article is primarily decorative and it otherwise contributes minimally to the article.
3. in this instance we don't even know whether the scene appears in the episode, which has not yet been broadcast; the item seems to have been taken from a generic trailer that covers several episodes, and may well contain pre-broadcast imagery that appear in the broadcast form of the episodes.
4. There is as yet no identification in the image file Image:Mr. Saxon new trailer.jpg of the article Last of the Time Lords as an article for which the Fair use defense against copyright infringement applies.

For details see the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC).

Some of these items can be fixed easily (the image could be downgraded to a lower quality, we could wait until the episode was broadcast and use an image from the broadcast) and some of them would be more difficult to fix (the image's contribution to the article is overwhelmingly decorative). The image should be removed until that is remedied. --Tony Sidaway 08:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow point 4.--Rambutan (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to the image file and enter a justification, if you can produce one, for the use of that image in this article. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source the image is actually from this episode? Matthew 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a source that it's from this two-parter, and that's good enough for WP. If you look at the Daleks in Manhattan history, you'll find that it had an image long before we knew which part of the two the image would appear in. The image represents the story and the plot, not the actual episode. The article only really reflects the plot (and contains almost identical info to the Sound of Drums).--Rambutan (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "good enough for WP". If there was an inappropriate image in Daleks in Manhattan, that does not mean it's okay to put an inappropriate image in other articles. Please see the non-free content criteria (WP:NFCC). --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a source that it's from this episode then it isn't good enough for me. Also, my qualm is not over the NFCC but rather remaining verifiable. Matthew 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I was assuming that if something stood on a Wikipedia article for several months, and wasn't removed by either you or Khaosworks or Josiah Rowe, then you all agreed that it was fine. You three do most of the prowling - though at least Josiah does it an a completely non-surly manner.--Rambutan (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source on the "He's fire and ice" caption? Do we know that it's about, or by, Saxon? If not, let's remove it please. Kelvingreen 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was said in John Simm's voice, placing it in this two-parter. I imagine that it's about the Doctor (as the voiceover at the end of the BBCi preview was), but it's in the same quandry that the picture's in.--Rambutan (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, I'd say you made a very bad assumption there. We're always trying to improve Wikipedia's quality (by "we", of course, I mean you, me, and everybody else) but we can't be everywhere and we're not (most of us at least) control freaks enough that we feel we have to fix everything at once. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, when I read your bit about "control freaks", I snorted and spilled my coffee!--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is just Users speculating using Wikipedia as a crystal ball (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). It's a voice-over that could of been spoken anyone (Rambutan, unless you see John Simms' lips move when the words are spoken you can't state that it is John Simm saying it) and could be refering to any character in the last half of the series. The image and the caption should remain removed either until someone can support their appearance on this page or the episode has been broadcast.--MrWez 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I can be sure it's him saying it, because he's got a voice which can be recognised. For example, how do we know it's him in the cabinet room? Unless there's an official BBC press release confirming that that's him, it shouldn't be on WP.

Also, it's obviously referring to the Doctor: who else would have that said about them at the climactic point in the trailer?--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Simm has a distinctive voice, which sounds nothing like the quote from the trailer, in my opinion. And that's the key here; all we've got to go on at this point is opinion, and that's not good enough for Wikipedia. Kelvingreen 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. I don't know whether it's him or not, or even whether it's the cabinet room. It's just a picture of this guy with his face obscured by a gas mask. Let's wait. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already removed this point about Saxon in the Cabinet room from the Mr Saxon article, it may however have been reverted back. I haven't checked.--MrWez 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC) That's strange, I may have been mistaken but I have made the appropriate edit now.--MrWez 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This thing about Saxon and the gas mask is a bit disingenuine. The gas mask is clear... you can see his face through it. Beyond that... you can easliy make out that it's Saxon, not just from his hair. You can pretty much see his face. If you are watching on a feed... you simply need to pause it to make sure.--Dr who1975 17:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan, Wikipedia is not here for people to define their own vision of how the series will play out. What you are claiming to be obvious may be to you but might not to be anybody else.
You can't make a justified arguement with the trailer footage, as the trailer is not entirely cut in sequencial order. The shots at the end (of the doors closing on the sun) may appear in the next episode.
The voice over may be refering to a villain in the "Human Nature" two parter, in fact when I first heard it I thought it was the character who says "We are the family of blood.".
Now I can't say I know John Simm well enough to pick his voice out. So unless I see him saying the words I cast doubt over your arguement. The shot of Mr Saxon in the cabinet room is John Simm, unless the bbc decided to use a look alike which is completely unlikely. However if you can be sure it is John Simm doing the voice-over, find a way of proving it before it goes on to this article.--MrWez 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Wikipedia editors aren't reliable sources. This is crystal-ball gazing. Even the assumption that all of the footage will appear in some episode or other isn't reliable--some scenes could be cut between the trailer and the broadcast. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Um, if all of this is true then why even run the risk of having a Saxon photo on the Sound of Drums page? After all it could easily be from this episode, we don't know. --Anguirus111 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Absolutely correct. --Tony Sidaway 00:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Ha, ha. I meant that as a joke. Oh well...--Anguirus111 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Most of the references to Saxon in wiki I've seen have refered to them as being from the trailer if something say's it's from an episode... this is easliy resolved by changing it. Deletionists should not be allowed to remove such references completely.--Dr who1975 17:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • To conform to the copyright policy we need, at a minimum, to know that the image illustrates something about the subject of the article, what it illustrates about the article, and how that illustration is necessary. We can't do that on the current information about the episode which is the subject of this article. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After listening to the 'fire and ice' voiceover several times, I'm personally pretty certain it's not John Simm's voice. More like the guy who says 'Run!' Who's that? Anyway..it's all irrelevant speculation since the soundtrack and the images are all out of sequence, so there is no way of knowing what's going on until all the episodes screen.. that's why its called a 'teaser'.Gwinva 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And it turns out not to be John Simm, but the psychic boy from Human Nature. There we go. Kelvingreen 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The psychic boy's voice is different from the one in trailers: either: a) the boy forsees Saxon using the phrase; b) the boy forsees Baines using it, or c) It is Simm's voice deliberately recorded to throw off fans. Take your pick :) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the caption's presence in Wikipedia, but'... logic tells us that such a memorable phrase, at such a prominent point in the trailer, must be something highly important (like, for example, a line spoken by one Time Lord about another...)!--Rambutan (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

I removed a rumors section added by BiggerontheInside because rumors and speculation don't conform to our policies of Verifiability (WP:V) and No original research (WP:NOR). --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Master?

The Sun reported a long time ago that John Simm was going to be signed to Doctor Who as the character the Master. While this was completely unfounded, it did come to pass that John Simm signed a contract to play some character or another who we now know to be the Mysterious Harold Saxton. But do we think it could still be possible that Harold Saxton will be The Master after all?

We know that The Master has used other names before, such as in The Daemons where he referred to himself as The Majester (Latin for Master). While the Master is supposed to be brown bread, we know that the laws of make-believe can sometimes go completely against the laws of time, nature and physics. I would say that the title "Last of the Time Lords" was a hint that there is the slightest possibility that John Simm will transpire to be the master.

PLus...and I hate to say this...the Sun did accurately predict the return of the Daleks.

James Random 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

just thinking couldnt the rani be played by that mysterious woman from ep 7 and tom ellis as the meddling monk??? --Dwrules 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There's really no reason to speculate on who John Simm (or anyone else for that matter) is 'secretly' playing. We'll all find out in a month (give or take). For all I know, Mr. Davies brings back Valeyard or has an all new villain.67.176.95.21 03:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Saxon turning out to be the Valeyard is something plausible. Other articles discussing Mr. Saxon say that he will be more than a match for the Doctor, something that the Valeyard, being a possible evil incarnation of the Doctor(or a manifestation of the Doctor's dark side, I forget which), would easily be, technically being the Doctor himself. But of course, let us not put that in the article, as it would be original research. Michael Mad 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Simm's casting as The Master was confirmed by The Independent as long ago as February. Shooting for the third series would have been complete by that time, so a late cast change is unlikely. The Sun should be ignored, it's in the business of speculation and gossip, which sells papers. It's reasonable to conjecture that Mister Saxon is The Master, but we don't have a reliable source for that. We can report that The Independent identified Simm as The Master in February and that he has been depicted as Mr Saxon in various BBC teasers for this season. The reader can draw his own conclusions, and will probably enjoy the frisson of doing so if we stick to giving him only the known facts and not our opinions. --Tony Sidaway 12:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite possible that, through reference, Harold Saxon may be the Meddling Monk. Although my own speculation, holds gravity on two counts. Firstly, the reference, Harold Saxon may be the reference to the Monks Meddling of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 which involved King Harold and the Saxon Army. Secondly, we all know that the Master was eventually and (so it seemed) finally killed by The Doctor in that terrible film the Americans did. The reason that it could be the meddling monk is one of random chance alone, in "the escape switch" we all know that The Doctor stole the directional unit from the Monk's TARDIS, forcing the monk to wander through time and space forever. Although Time Lord history says that Gallifrey was destroyed in the time war, The chances that the monks TARDIS without a direction unit having being present on gallifrey during this time would have to be almost infinite. Therefore it is reasonable to speculate that the Meddling Monk is alive and well.

Although Mr. Saxon may be a villain and the Meddling Monk was not inherintly evil, an eternity of being lost in time and space can embitter even the most hardened individuals, therefore it becomes reasonabel to speculate that the Meddling Monk could be cast as a villain. James Random

Handwaving, speculation and weaseling

I've removed most of the cast notes section. The removed text reads as follows:

He [Tom Ellis] has been spotted on a beach with Freema Agyeman (who was wearing SAS-style clothing). Similarly, The Sun has reported that Elize Du Toit's character is named "Miss Dexter" and is a villain. Doctor Who Magazine #381 confirmed her casting but did not say whether she would be good or bad.

The Sun has also reported that John Simm will appear in the finale as the Doctor's arch-nemesis the Master. Although this has not been confirmed or denied by official sources, an interview with The Independent on Sunday seems to confirm Simm's casting. Simm refused to confirm that he had been cast in an interview broadcast on BBC 6Music on February 13 2007, but also did not deny the story outright.

Clips at the series three press launch have shown Simm and on the Newsround report on the 22nd March show Tennant and Simm both referred to the character as 'Mr Saxon'. Tennant also goes onto say that he's 'more than a match for the Doctor in ways he hadn't thought possible'.

Gossip and entertainment columns in tabloid newspapers are not reliable sources. The Independent isn't a tabloid and the researcher for the interview can be assumed to have made a good effort to get his facts right, but that reference only confirms that as early as February Simm had been publicly identified as The Master.

A few more words about the above: "refused to confirm...but did not deny" is weaseling. It's a common technique in yellow journalism when there isn't a story or the sources are poor but the journalist needs to write column inches to sell the paper. We don't do it. If there's nothing to write and no good sources, we write nothing. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with the removal of any 'fact' only substantiated by British tabloids. The Sun, Daily Mirror etc etc, are not reliable sources.Gwinva 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image of Captain Jack

I've taken the liberty of removing the image of Captain Jack [1] recently added to the page. My understanding is it's a publicity photo of filming on location and not of a scene from the episode. Mark H Wilkinson 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. Since it appears to be in Cardiff anyway, it's probably from "Utopia".--Rambutan (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on some wording.

In the preceding series, the Doctor is referred to as "the Last of the Time Lords" by the watch storing his Time Lord consciousness when opened by Latimer in Human Nature.

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me because it says 'in the preceding series'. To me that means Series 2 or 1 of this show, but it's referring to something that happened 'this' series. I changed the wording but it got reverted with no reason given and I really think it needs to be clarified. Thoughts?--Anguirus111 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A note regarding a prior 'Last of the Time Lords'.

I've removed the note on Last of the Time Lords as an early title of the TV movie [2] because, as it happens, it's not true (and therefore not easy to verify). I think the inclusion may have arisen due to conflating the TVM and the Daltenrays project, an attempt to get an actual motion picture off the ground; the latter had the title Doctor Who - Last of the Time Lords at one point (cf. p 76-77 of Philip Segal's and Gary Russell's Regenerations or [3]), even having publicity material printed to that effect. But I'm not about to dump this into the article, because it doesn't strike me as notable; the film was never made and may not have had any influence on naming this episode. Mark H Wilkinson 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, since the phrase has been used before, although I can't believe RTD would not have noticed the significance. Since the Dalentry's film was well known (and synopses in circulation) I think a brief note is worthwhile - afterall Evolution of the Daleks notes that the "...of the Daleks" title construction dates back to a working title (The Return of the Daleks). Timrollpickering 23:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your referencing seems to have gone slightly askew on the page. As I'm not wholly sure what you're aiming to do there, I'm not sure what to fix. Mark H Wilkinson 10:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I copied that from Geography of the Odyssey as it was the nearest page to hand with a book reference in it, but that's using a bibliography, with the footnotes linking to it. I'll try again. Timrollpickering 11:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Press Release

The BBC Press release [4] is now available. It gives away one of the most open secrets regarding the season arc (and I see someone's already tried to put it in the synopsis). How much of the info from this (and I don't mean copying line for line) should we try to include in the article, if anything? Mark H Wilkinson 12:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

All of it, pretty much. It's all sourced.--Rambutan (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a spoiler tag exists for wikipedia, someone should probably slap that on this page.--Anguirus111 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines suggest we don't use them on sections people can expect to discuss such episode details. Mark H Wilkinson 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}} The current synopsis is a copyright violation of the official synopsis (in the source). I suggest you use the modified one from this version.--Rambutan (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please add {{Master Stories}} to the bottom of the article. Will ^(talk) 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not actually a dispute, WP:CITE is quite clear. The three-parter stuff did not have a cite-tag or weblink, thus it was unsourced, and in breach of policy.--Rambutan (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know: I asked Majorly to do it to stop the edit war between Digby and the IP. We could say:

"It is part of an arc spanning three episodes starting with "Utopia (Doctor Who)" and ending with this episode""Series 2, Episode 11". Totally Doctor Who. 2007-05-15. BBC. BBC One.

Or something like that. Will ^(talk) 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if that's true. I didn't watch TDW, but it must have a source. It's not a dispute unless both sides have policies on their side. I'm for unprotection now.--Rambutan (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's true that Utopia leads into the two parter, at least according to the spoiler blogs I've read (which we certainly can't use as sources). But that's not quite the same as the assertion that Utopia is the first of a three part story; nobody tries to assert that Logopolis and Castrovalva are an eight-parter, for example. Mark H Wilkinson 15:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC) - Well he was wrong.

On the page for "Utopia", it's sourced to TDW. It wasn't me!--Rambutan (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I moved the note about the TDW presenter's description of Utopia to pre-broadcast publicity in the hope it would satisfy those eager to rewrite episode numbering etc. As you can see, it didn't work. From where I stand, a line from a children's television presenter doesn't supercede established information from DWM unless it's accompanied by a new statement from someone far more reliable/official. (Not that I have anything against TDW, it's just way behind CBC Newsround and the BBC Wales production office as a reliable source of information.) Mark H Wilkinson 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. What's your view on unprotection?--Rambutan (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, we're supposed to resolve a dispute (assuming it's still classed as one) by discussion in order to justify unprotecting an article. Which sounds great in theory, but the IPs with which we were having to deal have yet to show any interest in any of the talk pages. I'd hate to see good contributors have to endure the aggravation of going through an admin for an exended period, just because someone's not willing to talk to us; then again, I can see the value of a short cooling off period (and by short, I mean one that doesn't extend beyond the next broadcast date, as we'll lose much of the workforce). Mark H Wilkinson 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And in the time it took me to get that out, we're unprotected. Typical. Mark H Wilkinson 16:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I managed to negociate it on IRC, after JWSchmidt decided not to unprotect (see his wisdoms below).--Rambutan (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection.--Rambutan (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

On IRC, JWSchmidt says: "I'd be happy to have those two Wikipedia pages remain protected for at least a month....it might give the editors a chance to actually learn about the topics and edit without having to argue", as an update to the situation.--Rambutan (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, "Wikipedia does not need these articles and they attract editors who cannot get along. A simple solution is to lock them down" and "Rambutan, I think you should become an administrator, then you can do as you like". Not really in the spirit of adminship guidelines, the protection policy or the concept of Wiki, but there you are.--Rambutan (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, everything's unprotected now.--Rambutan (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironic

I found it ironic that a debate over whether certain links should be in the article where the Wikipedia is not censored argument is used is itself censored .Garda40 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because the conversation has served its purpose and was only used as a vehicle to attack homosexuals. Next, please. Will ^(talk) 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then delete the more obnoxious material as the start of the debate does provide the rationale as to why the link is there if people wonder why Garda40 14:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to provide rationale to every outward link on talk pages. Will ^(talk) 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What I said on this matter did not attack homosexuals - I merely stated an opinion on the irrelevance and inappropriate nature of the link. My comment has been censored - the person who did it is a hypocrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.105.96.154 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) My comment about being censored has now been censored - I will not get involved in an editing war - please leave this comment on - then at least people can check the history of this page and see that I was right. 83.105.96.154 16:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed your comment because it was not signed. See WP:SIG. Also see WP:POINT, which says "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point". This conversation isn't serving a purpose, so button it.--Rambutan (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Then can we agree that the comment you removed be restored? 83.105.96.154 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you explain how it enriches Wikipedia, bearing in mind WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:OWN, WP:CON and WP:POINT.--Rambutan (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest to resolve this dispute the source in question be changed to http://www.johnbarrowman.com/ - surely no one can have any argument about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.105.96.154 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The news is the news. If you've got an objection against homosexuality, go nominate Gay for deletion. As it's corrupting the morals of youth. Will ^(talk) 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we just ignore this: any removal is vandalism, and it's a waste of time discussing it, since these guys can never concede that policy is policy.--Rambutan (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that the site links to a site with porn on it. The fact that it is gay porn is irrelevant. As a compromise I have posted a link to John Barrowman's site. As I am sure you know he is gay (I do not have a problem with that) the difference is that his website does not contain porn. Surely the whole point is that the text is verified - use this link and it will be verified. End of story. 83.105.96.154 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The source says Barrowman will be attending, but not Agyeman. The gay.com news item does. I also doubt you actually visited the site, just that you saw "gay.com" and assumed there was pornography. If you even bothered reading PlanetOut's community guidelines, you'd see that only premium members can see adult photos. Will ^(talk) 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Even if it did contain pornography, that would be acceptable for Wikipedia (see WP:CENSOR). As we have explained, if you disagree with that policy, then that is your privilege, but you may not speak out about it except in the correct place. This is the wrong place. Editors are obliged to revert censorship within articles. If you wish to debate the policy and its value, then you must do so on a general policy page, not in a specific article. Try here, for example.

Also, if you choose to allow your children on the Internet, then you must take the rough with the smooth. Sure, kids will find objectionable content on the Internet, and you, as a father, must make a balance between the positive value of the Internet and its negative applications. Examine possibilities of filtering. But, above all, no website is legally obliged to remove material because it's asked, unless the material is libellous, a copyright violation etc...; just because you can edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that you have free reign to dictate what you consider to be acceptable content, if your definition is at odds with everyone else's. I hope that's clear and we won't need to hear any more about it.--Rambutan (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT edited the material out as you seem to accuse me of. I am merely discussing it in a civil manner I have even given you a perfectly reasonable alternative which would suit everyone apart from yourself and Will it would seem. It seems to me that the two of you are dictating what goes on this page to everyone else. 83.105.96.154 08:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your alternative is not reasonable as it contains less information than our link. You have been attempting to censor Wikipedia, which is not allowed.--Rambutan (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across this page during RC patrol. Its pretty clear to me that the site being discussed has the complete information, even if it has some content which might not be acceptable to everyone. As WP editors, it is our job to provide references and make sure the text can be verified. What content the refs/links have is none of our business, we simply have to keep whatever reliable sources we have and use them to reference the text. To the anon Sir/Madam who has raised objections, please have a look at WP:CENSOR to see why this is so. Regards,xC | ☎ 08:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rambutan as you are so keen on quoting rules to me may I refer you to this WP:BURO before you edit anymore of my posts. 83.105.96.154 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. I haven't edit a single one of your posts; I've just deleted a few because they were rude, vulgar or merely unsigned.--Rambutan (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones, and bury these differences. If both sides remain civil, I'm sure we'll have no further problems. Whatever the issue is, we can sort that out logically and respectfully.

Rambutan - if you believe a comment is rude/vulgar/whatever the case may be, remove the comment. But please do also add in a placeholder comment stating why it was removed, and who the original poster was, with a diff if possible. If it shouldn't have been removed, this makes it easier to figure out.

Anon 83.......154 - please do sign your posts and refrain from profanity. I haven't gone through the history looking for the diffs to prove or disprove what either party is saying. The fact is, we're all volunteers here, with nothing to gain from these virtual arguments except a high blood pressure and dislike for some faceless stranger sitting halfway across the globe.

Whatever it is that needs to be discussed, do discuss it. Argue about it, but politely. Debate. Don't abuse each other, don't use language which is demeaning. It is an opportunity to meet someone with different views, or who feels differently about something than how you hold them. And at the end of the day, remember we are trying to write an encyclopedia. If something helps the encylopedia, do it. Anything which harms it, hurts the editors, or pushes us away from our final goal should be avoided.

My apologies if this (intended) small post turned into a lecture. I've come across tons of pages during recent changes patrol which all deal with the same arguments over and over again. Anon Sir/Madam what you are bringing up is an issue which has been discussed over and over right from when WP started. Run a google search on it, or look through the archives on some talk pages of controversial articles (eg. related to genitals/sexual orientation) You'll find a lot of things there which apply equally well here. But first and foremost we are writing an encyclopedia, if something needs a reference, then it should have a reference. And what other content the ref page has should not concern us, that is irrelevant to our goals. So long as it a reliable source, we should not concern ourselves with what else is on that page.

Perhaps it would be best if I ended this post now. Anon Sir/Madam, please do consider signing up for an account, clearly you know how things work around here and know your way around. We could do with editors like you. My best wishes to both you and Rambutan,xC | ☎ 17:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice xC for the record I have never used any vulgarity or profanity on Wikipedia. Nor have I been rude to others. I have tried to settle this amicably with Rambutan but he has stated on my user page that he doesn't want to let bygones be bygones. I have done all I can and that is all I have to say on the matter. 83.105.96.154 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[5] Mr IP, all I said was that you aren't in a position to debate bygones, since you're in clear violation of WP:POINT.--Rambutan (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I think its worth adding under trivia (or similar). "In an effort to keep the ending secret, TV reviewers will not be given a preview of the episode." This is verified by http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_6760000/newsid_6763700/6763787.stm Kelpin 09:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(I'd add it myself but the page is protected). Kelpin 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added. Just a note: they did something similar to Doomsday last year. Will ^(talk) 10:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kelpin 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Saxon?

Is it safe to assume the Masters wife is human?--Poodleman 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was safe to assume that, because RTD said so, the Master wasn't coming back. --QUADRATUS _{(speak to me, human)} ^{(yes i've been here)} _{(vote saxon)} 09:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't assume anything without a reliable source.--Rambutan (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Toclafane??

Do you think that the 'Toclafane's' true identity will be revealed??

--82.11.73.165 12:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh (rummages in vast cranium, pulls out first crumpled idea that comes to mind) they're obviously daleks who escaped from the void in some manner yet to be explained. <grin> --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. How would a Dalek fit into one of those spheres? --82.11.73.165 12:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Using a quantum-modulated engibberator set to gas mark 7 and forty minutes, of course. Leave to stand at least one minute before serving, obviously. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

{{talkheader}}

Just a very gentle reminder that the above template exists at the top of this page for a reason... "Gas Mark 7..." indeed! A few micro seconds in the heart of a forming star (and leave to cool for a few millenia before serving) would suffice! LessHeard vanU 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)