Talk:The Day of the Doctor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reader feedback: Surely there is absolutely n...

Jlcwalden posted this comment on 24 November 2013 (view all feedback).

Surely there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to suppose that the Museum Curator might be the Fourth Doctor, just because of the choice of actor? When the 4th Doctor regenerated into the 5th, he looked like a middle-aged brown-haired man. The 4th incarnation never lived to look like a white-haired elderly man. Therefore, a man of the Museum Curator's physical appearance cannot possibly be the Fourth Doctor - it is NOT "ambiguous"!

Any thoughts?

BobGreenwade (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Bits of the Curator's dialogue -- bits about "revisiting old [faces]" and "perhaps I was you once" -- suggest (at least to me) that he was intended as not the Fourth Doctor, but rather some future incarnation. BobGreenwade (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant to be reconciled in-universe. It's meant to be Tom Baker talking to Matt Smith about being the Doctor, for the fans. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It will mean whatever (a) the scriptwriters and (b) the fanfic writers want it to. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Easy answer to all of this: find a source that comments about this. It is the only determiner as to what goes into the article. Any supposition will be stomped to death as it appears. I know that sounds harsh, but this is mostly a discussion that belongs on a forum site, not in a Wikipedia talk page. Get a source that talks about this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not one word of the dialogue indicates that the Curator is supposed to be the Fourth Doctor. Dr.Who (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask again: are there any references regarding this? If so, we might be able to include sth. If not, then no dice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not the fourth doctor. Its a future "retired" version of the doctor who revisits one of his old faces. They say it clearly in the episode. Was I the ONLY one who picked that up?--JOJ ^Hutton 21:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you were not the only one, but he uses enough weasel words to cast doubt. Besides, experience attempting to contribute to Wikipedia has shown me that the thing being discussed, whether it is a movie, script, or board game, is never an adequate "reliable source." --Joe Sewell (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

TALK PAGE. Not a forum. JohnSmith5000100 (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Continuity: second verse same as the first verse…

I've noted this before: we cannot make these connections ourselves, as we aren't notable or citable. When we try to do so, we are using Synthesis. For many of the continuity asides, you need to find a reference that makes that connection. Doing so not only establishes a source for the continuity item, but also establishes it as notable and therefore non-trivial. Providing these sources can only be considered a Good Thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is another possible source. Not everything has to be included though. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Billie Piper (2)

ooookay. In the story she's The Moment, a self-aware operating system for a bomb. But in the credits she's credited as Rose. What do we do/say about this? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I say credit her as something like 'Image of Rose Tyler'. Ian01 (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the infobox should be simple about it and just list her as "The Moment", while the cast section should list her as "The Moment" but explain that it has taken the form of Rose Tyler, and it would be best to mention that while Billie Piper was credited as Rose that she does not actually portray the character. Probably something like: "Billie Piper as the Moment. While credited as Rose Tyler, Billie Piper was instead portraying the projection of the Moment's user interface which had taken the form of the Doctor's future companion." - The Light6 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed verification

As of now, the article lacks any ref that establishes Billie Piper is appearing as anything but Rose Tyler. We know "Billie Piper, who played companion Rose Tyler for two series following the reboot in 2005, will appear in the show for the first time since featuring in Tennant’s last episode, ‘The End of Time’ in 2010." from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/articles/DOCTOR-WHO-ANNOUNCES-ALL-STAR-CAST-FOR-50th-ANNIVERSARY. Here are statements from the article that cite that ref, yet fail verification:

• In intro: "the latter by proxy"
• In #Cast: "Billie Piper as the Moment Interface, a Gallifreyan super weapon. While credited as Rose Tyler, Billie Piper was instead portraying the projection of the Moment's user interface which had taken the form of the Doctor's then-future companion."

And in another example, we see a bare URL (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03hwkxp) cited in #Publicity as a reference for "On 22 November 2013, Billie Piper stated on BBC Radio 2 "I can say something about my character; it's not Rose as we know her" to Chris Evans about the episode", yet that quote is not found.

I suggest that these references get replaced, but in lieu of that happening I am requesting that the template {{Failed verification}} be added to each of the items listed above. 72.244.206.122 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that The Moment corrects herself, and names herself as Bad Wolf, which is then consistently used throughout the rest of the show, thus Billie Piper should be credited as The Moment/Bad Wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C529:9630:504B:EED1:A2C0:EC (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If the official credits for the production credit her as "Rose" the Wikipedia should credit her the same. Her appearance as The Moment can be explained within the article. --Jaiotu (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

SHE IS NOT REALLY ROSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.41.69 (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thirteenth Doctor?

Does 'the war council' refer to the Capaldi incarnation as the Twelfth or the Thirteenth Doctor - which he technically is (counting the War Doctor as one incarnation)? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It just says there are 13 there. Mezigue (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically the WD is 'not the Doctor' but 'the person who became the Doctor.' Probably best left to the Whovian discussion groups (as is speculation as to what will happen when the sequence of incarnations reaches its end - probably not regenerating as a William Hartnell lookalike/a 'young WD'). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Steven Moffat, the War Doctor isn't included in the numbering system, however his (re-)incarnation still used up one of his 12 regenerations. See here for the full article. G.Light (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mainly a request for clarification on my part, and a nod at Capaldi-Doctor seeming to be the last regeneration. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, History has been changed. Therefore, the war doctor is the "now" 9th Doctor and should regenerate directly into the Capaldi doctor, and become the 10th Doctor. The recent 9th, 10th and 11th Doctors will thus never have existed, except perhaps in the hidden? memories of their companions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.34.30 (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear Tennant and Smith still existed, Hurt regenerates into (we presume) Ecclestone. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Broadcasters

I reverted a good faith edit to remove non-English speaking broadcasters from the list as advised in MOS:TV. It is my understanding that the point of this list is to document the noteworthy situation that it was broadcast simultaneously in nearly all of these countries either on television or cinema. I believe limiting the list to just English speaking countries would mean that it would fail to clearly illustrate this point. I'm just checking whether this is the consensus among other editors or not. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. It's not about what channels the show was broadcast but the simultaneous world-wide broadcast, which includes non-English speaking broadcasters. DonQuixote (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I do wonder if the list would be better collapsible, however. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I boldly collapsed the table. Comments are welcome. DonQuixote (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks better collapsed. The readers can expand it for additional info. Good call. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Baker's credit

Why on Earth would we mention Baker in the credits and intentionally omit the way he is actually credited on the show? He's not credited as the Curator, and he only plays the Fourth Doctor in archive footage. Therefore, the most logical way to credit him would be as follows:

• Tom Baker – The Curator (credited as The Doctor, also in archive footage)

Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You have now broken WP:3RR; I suggest you revert yourself to avoid being blocked. Then we can talk. — Edokter (talk) — 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Edokter: do you think protecting the article so that only admins can edit would be a good idea for a few days so that everyone is forced to discuss changes? Thanks, Matty.007 18:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. But I can't do it for obvious reasons. — Edokter (talk) — 18:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind adding it at RPP as I have to go (or I can ask in about one hour). Thanks, Matty.007 18:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I take it that my plea to you on my talk page has fallen on deaf ears, not to mention that it seems we both broke the restriction. Can we please talk about the subject, which is what this talk page is for in the first place? Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have better luck than I did. I asked and it seems that admins are too cautious to fully protect the article because of its high traffic.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've listed it. Thanks, Matty.007 18:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not break anything. Again, please revert yourself, then we'll talk. — Edokter (talk) — 19:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Edokter and Chunk5Darth: I think both of you need to leave the article alone until consensus is established, or even just leave it. Thanks, Matty.007 20:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That is easier said then done. I am frustrated that such a bad edit was allowed to stay in (someone else reverted it now). Anyway, how does "Tom Baker – The Curator (credited as The Doctor, also in archive footage)" make any sense? It ("also") implies the curator was the Doctor, so it is speculation. "Tom Baker – Curator (uncredited)" makes more sense; as the curator, he is uncredited. He was credited as the Doctor, but that goes for all the Doctors, but they're also not in the infobox. The cast section goes into depth about the role of Tom Baker. — Edokter (talk) — 20:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be, but you don't want to be blocked for edit warring over something so trivial. Thanks, Matty.007 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to. What makes you think I would? — Edokter (talk) — 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You kept reverting me, in spite of the fact that even 3RR discourages editors from "dancing on that borderline", and you keep refusing to discuss the matter with me unless I obey your command. Not only are you intentionally edit warring (which makes both of us, and I apologize to the community for my part in it), you threw me under the bus instead of trying to reach an amicable solution. So, as I stated before, your behavior is WP:POINTY and childish. Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Read Bold, Revert, Discuss. Once you were reverted, you started to edit war, not me. I stopped before 3RR, you didn't and reverted a fourth time; a blockable offence! You should know I have zero tolerance for editors that throw accusations towards other editors but keep breaking the rules themselves. It is the fastest way of building a negative reputation, and will probably get you blocked by another admin sooner or later. So if you want to build a good reputation, don't accuse others of what you are doing yourself. — Edokter (talk) — 15:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with infobox credit as "Curator (uncredited)." As noted, the fact that he appears as the 4th Doctor in archival footage is discussed elsewhere on the page. Sir Rhosis (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• If we only mention that he is the uncredited curator, it is an intentional omission of info about a guest appearance of an actor. Either we credit Tom Baker for his full contribution to the episode or we leave him out of the infobox altogether. As for Edokter's remark concerning a possible speculation via the use of the word "also", it is simply not true: Baker made a live action cameo, and also appeared in archive footage. Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Respectfully disagree. His archival credit is properly noted elsewhere. We have only omitted it from the infobox, from which we have also (correctly) omitted all the other five-or-so second archival appearances of previous actors to have played the Doctor. Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• None of the other actors is mentioned in the infobox, so this argument is quite irrelevant. As I said, we should either credit Baker for all that he's done in this episode or leave him out. This would be the only truly impartial way to deal with it. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • If you credit Baker for archival footage, you have to credit all the past Doctors, and that's not happening; they are incidental roles, properly discussed in the body of the text. Baker's appearance as the Curator (and only that, we can't speculate on being a Doctor) is important to be noted in the text box since that wasn't a trivial one-line-and-done roll. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
    • One last clarification: none of the other Doctor actors are credited in the infobox at all. Therefore, it's pointless to compare. If Baker is already there, it's a moot point to exclude information about him. This is the reason I stated that my view on this is either include everything about him, or leave him out of the infobox altogether. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
      • The problem is that the archival footage pieces are bit parts, and made no requirement of Baker to do anything new; he and the other former Doctors are credited as per normal film reuse policies to credit those roles. What is important is that Baker played the uncredited (but obvious) role of the Curator, which did require him to act again and more than a walk on bit part, and hence why that should have an important credit space. The crediting of archival footage from Baker's period is more a formality than an actual "credit". --MASEM (t) 06:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I missed all of this in the wall o' text, but are you arguing about cited, referenced information from reliable sources, or are you using your personal knowledge? That's really the only way that this should play out.

As well, I think that both Chunk5Darth and Edokter should sit this one out; we get their points of view; let us take it from here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Reply to Jack Sebastian: Of course this is about cited information, and yes, it only seems fair that other editors will contribute to this discussion. Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you say this is an issue over a cited piece of information, state the problem in one sentence, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Baker isn't credited as the Curator, but is confirmed as such by secondary sources; he is, however, credited as one of the Doctors, and also appears in archive footage. It is rather ridiculous not to mention his entire contribution to this episode (it's not much anyway), so I believe the infobox should say:

Tom Baker as the Curator (credited as The Doctor, also in archive footage)

Chunk5Darth (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If I am to understand you correctly, you are stating that Baker is not credited as the Doctor in this episode. This article is in fact about this episode. It would appear to me that the information about Baker's prior involvement in the series (be it as a cast member, a gaffer or a fluffer) belongs in the production section, along with the cited material that notes the connection (and not, as some might think, in continuity).

A fluffer? Jesus. Seven years as the Doctor yes, but Chunk5Darth wasn't referring to that. If you watch the episode, you see he plays quite a substantial role as the Curator, who is clearly a future Doctor. He also plays the Fourth Doctor in archive footage, and for this he is credited as "The Doctor".

Actually one could argue that because speaking parts are always credited, and he is only credited as the Doctor, this confirms the Curator is the Doctor, though it's made very clear he is anyway. 86.128.108.12 (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In this way, we avoid all this back and forth about the importance of the actor's appearance and simply state the facts for the reader. I am fairly certain they can make up their own mind about its significance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I was stating the exact opposite - that Baker is credited as the Doctor. My suggestion, which is right above your reply, stands with your offer to state the facts that are pertinent to his role in the episode: he is the uncredited Curator, but credited as the Doctor and there is also archive footage of him as the Fourth Doctor. Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So... do you agree? Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Chunk5Darth on this one.Zythe (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I am so sorry - I must have forgotten to hit the 'save page' button when I last replied, Chunk5Darth. I had meant to reply that since he was indeed credited as "The Doctor" in the credits, and you have a reliable reference wherein someone pointed out the connection between the curator and actor's previous stint as the Doctor, we should have no problem including that. If we don't have reliable reference for someone outside Wikipedia making that connection, we can only state that Baker was cast as a curator but credited as the Doctor. It's a small distinction, but we - as editors - are not allowed to connect the dots. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no connection whatsoever if we only state that he was credited as the Doctor, and his footage as the Fourth Doctor was also featured in the episode. How is that connecting the dots? Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Because, quite simply, because it is you that is pointing out that there is archival footage of the actor as the Fourth incarnation, and not someone notable enough to be referenced. You need a source that draws attention to that. We cannot make that connection, as we contributors are not notable enough to be cited.

The first 9 Doctors are all in archive footage, which is something that is plainly seen in the last scene, as well as in the credits - in both, Baker is placed in his respective place, between Pertwee and Davison. To the best of my knowledge, that is not original research; just for the sake of the argument, though, here is an article by Entertainment Weekly, stating the obvious: "In what amounts to the most creative clip show ever, every other actor who ever played the Doctor made an appearance via viewscreen/archive footage."Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget we are talking about the infobox; all of the above is more then adequatly explained in the Cast section. The infobox is there to only convey the most significant bits. Tom Baker being in archive footage is not significant enough to go in the infobox (just like all other past Doctors), but his uncredited appearence as the Curator is significant. — Edokter (talk) — 14:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Further on edokter's argument, if we added it here, we'd have to add in all other 9 actors, as well as revamp the infoboxes at The Eleventh Hour and Name of the Doctor (to name those that come to mind), just to include "archival footage" uses, or even Caves of Andrazoni (to account for the previous companions that appear and there that wasn't all archival - those were new lines for that regen). It is a detail that flashes by in a fraction of a second and effectively not worth the effort to dedicate tight real estate of the infobox towards. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't have to add the others, because Baker is already there. It's just a couple of additional words in <small> font, and lest we sidetrack again, Jack Sebastian's issue seems to be with Baker's archive footage being confirmed (it is), and Zythe expressed agreement with my position. Unlike the others, Baker makes two appearances - live-action and archive footage. It seems somewhat silly to insist on excluding half of that information. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If you add the archival footage role, you have to add the others to avoid bias, because you're putting that archival footage on a pedestal. It's a trivial bit of 2-3 seconds of screen footage, not worth expanding the infobox for. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of episodes with archive footage of past Doctors being used; none of them have any credits in the episodes' infoboxes, or in the episodes for that matter. They happen to be credited here to commemorate the 50th anniversary, but otherwise it is exactly the same as the others. Flashbacks and archive footage are never listed in the infobox; that includes Baker's appearence in archive footage here. — Edokter (talk) — 18:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that my points are being utterly ignored? I wrote in reply to Masem: "we wouldn't have to add the others, because Baker is already there." Masem's consequent reply was "If you add the archival footage role, you have to add the others". I'm not putting anything on a pedestal, I'm simply crediting Baker for what he did in the episode. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not ignoring your arguments; we're refuting them. We cannot add Baker for his archive footage appearance as it creates undue bias over the other Doctors, as well as undue significance over his real-world appearance. The "already there" is therefor invalid, as we specifically credit him for his role as curator. His archive appearance is treated just like anybody else's. — Edokter (talk) — 09:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems rather LAME. Can it be solved with a footnote? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It is already solved... in the article text. — Edokter (talk) — 12:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not "solved", that's going your way all the way. The footnote is an excellent compromise, as it would do justice to the fact that Baker is the only actor who appears in live-action and archive footage, and at the same time, won't "take up valuable infobox real estate". Can we compromise? I think this is as close to fair as we can get here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll jump in here. Tom Baker was uncredited. Therefore had no credited role as a "Curator" - therefore the infobox should not state him as playing such a role (the episode was ambiguous as to who he was - and deliberately no doubt). The infobox can include him since he did have an acting (ie. speaking) part in the episode, but should be listed as: Tom Baker (uncredited). This is not controversial since he didn't have a labelled role as per the credits (and it's not for us to give him one) - any further information can be expanded upon in the cast section.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources credit him as the Curator. The issue right now is the footnote. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So, footnote then? Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Multiple editors have objected to any expansion in the infobox. We are going by the sources, so Baker is listed as the curator. The archive footage is not notable for inclusion in the infobox, as archive appearences never have been. — Edokter (talk) — 19:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No one objected to the footnote when it was proposed. It's the perfect middle ground between your way of doing it and mine. This is how 3O works. Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd point out that while there is always the possibility of forgetting what's done elsewhere, consensus isn't always about finding the middle ground. If a proposed solution is flat-out wrong or goes against our policies and/or guidelines, we can't do it. To utilize the IAR route, there has to be a really good reason for doing so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The footnote isn't flat out wrong (considering everything said in this discussion), and it certainly doesn't go against policies and guidelines - unless there is one I missed. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It goes against established practice within WikiProject Doctor Who and WP:WHO/MOS. No other episode has any archive footage listed in the infobox, credited or not. I'll say it one more time: the infobox is for essential and notable information, and archival appearances are not essential or notable. A footnote is also less visible then the text already in the article, so that adds nothing to the article as a whole. — Edokter (talk) — 13:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Cinema viewing in Australia

The world map only shows Australia as having been broadcast on TV. In fact it also played at Dendy Cinemas. Can the colour be updated to reflect both TV and cinema? Gregwmay (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right in saying that it played at cinemas (the table next to the world map states that it was shown at Hoyts Cinemas, Event Cinemas and Village Cinemas). However, that map is for countries that screened "The Day of the Doctor" simultaneously; while the episode aired - simultaneous to the UK - at 6:50am AEDT, I believe the first cinema screenings weren't until around 11am. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewatching

I was rewatching this tonight, during the time of the doctor broadcast, and I realized a link between the Tom Baker cameo.

Queen Elizabeth I appointed the doctor as curator of the Undergalllery, so the curator of the Undergalllery in 2013 could be a version of the Doctor. No this is speculation on my part and we would need a source beside the musings of a thirty-five year+ Doctor Who geek. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The episode all but blatantly stated that the curator was a future doctor. Unfortunately, we need a third-party source. Are we able to note in the article that third-party sources interpreted it that way? Ωphois 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Twelfth Doctor

Can anyone give a reason why Peter Capaldi is not listed in the infobox? I added him in a few weeks back, but it was reverted. I assumed once the dust settled on the episode he would be restored, because I genuinely can't think of one good reason why he shouldn't be there. We can cite his appearance through independent sources, he was playing his version of the Doctor, and his shot was specifically filmed for the episode. What's the problem? U-Mos (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Because the infobox goes by credits, and he is not credited. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't, see The Tenth Planet, The War Games, Vincent and the Doctor, Asylum of the Daleks etc etc. And Tom Baker's mention in this very article! U-Mos (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to the guest section, following the example set for "The Name of the Doctor". However, should he be listed in the Doctor section? "The Parting of the Ways" and The End of Time articles list the new doctors in that section, even though they are only on-screen for less than 30 seconds. Ωphois 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe he should be listed in the Doctor section; he appeared as the Doctor, despite only for a very short time (whereas Tom Baker's appearance is disputed, so he belongs in the Others section). I think the same should go for John Hurt's appearance in "The Name of the Doctor" too, while we're at it. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't the starring actor, though. It was clearly a Matt Smith episode with prominent (star billing) guest appearances by David Tennant and Matt Smith. Let's not be too beholden to the internal logic of the show when discussing these things: Capaldi's appearance was only the briefest of cameos, he hardly acted in it, and even as a character the Twelfth Doc had little impact. It was just a treat.Zythe (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is a Matt Smith episode, but Capaldi still appeared, in new footage, as the Doctor. You're right, it was the "briefest of cameos", but it was still a cameo, and it was still an appearance. Therefore, I believe he should be credited more. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So it seems there is consensus for him in the infobox. The question now is whether as a guest or in the Doctor section? Based on the format of other articles' infoboxes, I think it's most appropriate for the Doctor section. Ωphois 04:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree that he needs to be listed in the infobox. Role insubstantial to story. Sir Rhosis (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree that he needs to be listed for the same reasons. There's no consensus here. –anemoneprojectors– 20:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions ahead of the GA review...

I ran across this on the list of GA nominees, and while I don't feel qualified enough re: Wikistandards to attempt a formal review, from a pure editing standpoint I do feel compelled to note that there's a noticeable excess of of fancrufty detail in this article. It's all well-written, and I know that to the obviously caring fans who've put it together every last little bit feels absolutely necessary, but... Wikipedia is about how to best make the material accessible to the broadly general info-gathering audience, and when you're going so far as to cite other fans' blog entries, you by default have a problem with that. Speaking as a casual DW viewer at best, I can attest that being confronted with this sort of thing actually tends to work against a non-fan getting a better grasp of the subject, or even wanting to.

I'd strongly suggest that the interim while waiting for GA review be spent giving the entire thing a once-over to consider what the essentials of the subject are (hint: nobody else really cares that the first episode began a minute and a half late, nor that Moffat denied rumours when the details of same aren't given), and how best to present them clearly and concisely. In particular, I'd suggest streamlining the 'Continuity' section to include only the most notable and/or meaningful homages (thus eliminating, for instance, the ones based around merely vaguely similar or reused dialogue) and then breaking up the enormous paragraphs into a more readable format, perhaps a bullet-type list. The pertinent info contained in the lengthy quotes in the 'Writing' section could probably be summarised into a few informative sentences. I also feel like the Plot section is excessively detailed, but given the nature of the episode, that may be inevitable. Hope this helps, Shoebox2 talk 03:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

...And after checking a bit further, I note that the GA nominator is a freshly-banned user who also doesn't appear to be a primary contributor to this article. I still stand by what I said above, but you might want to get that little problem sorted out first.:) Shoebox2 talk 03:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, given that the original nominator remains banned, and the noticeable lack of anyone else willing to step up and take responsibility in his place, I'm removing the GA template from this talkpage, thus effectively cancelling the nomination. Note that the article can be re-nommed by any interested party at any time, without prejudice -- although I'd still strongly recommend taking the steps above prior to doing so. Shoebox2 talk 04:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have some recently-acquired information to add, but I think it's just a bit too soon and I wouldn't have nominated the article quite yet. Thank you for not letting this clog up the GAN requests. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Billie Piper: Rose Tyler or the Moment?

I would suggest that Billie Piper be credited as both of these characters in the infobox, to avoid confusion. While she is listed as the Moment elsewhere in the article, she is not playing the original Rose who travelled with the Ninth and Tenth Doctors, as suggested in the infobox. Rather, she is playing a sentient computer program who drew her image from the Doctor's timestream. To see her listed as Rose in the infobox could be confusing to the casual reader, which is why I propose that she be credited in this fashion: Billie Piper - Rose Tyler/The Moment.

G S Palmer (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is previous consensus in the archives for this talk page that she should be credited as Rose in the infobox. First, it does not matter when those discussions occurred the fact that consensus was reached does. Second, it is also a fact that there is a longstanding consensus for both the TV and film wikiprojects that credits are as seen onscreen. She is listed as Rose Tyler in the closing credits and that settles the situation. Anything else should be discussed in the body of the article with relevant WP:RSs. BTW the script as read onscreen never says that she is representing "The Moment" - it states that she is representing "The conscience of the Moment" but that does not belong in the infobox either. MarnetteD | Talk 16:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

First, new posts go at the bottom of a talk page not the top. Second, as I stated above, any "confusion" needs to be discussed in the body of the article with sources. Actual "confusion" comes when something is mentioned in the infobox that is contrary to the credits as listed onscreen. MarnetteD | Talk 17:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the placing, I screwed up. And don't worry - I'm not going to start an edit war. I'm actually going to bow out of this conversation and leave it for others to decide. I just thought I would try to get a discussion going to resolve a dispute that never actually reached any real consensus. G S Palmer (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it did reach a consensus and your insisting on saying it didn't does not change that fact. Also the wider consensus regarding "credits are as seen onscreen" is the default guideline. MarnetteD | Talk 20:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say one last thing. Wikipedia is for the readers, and sometimes the rules such as the one you cite above can only lead to confusion.

This leads me to say that a) to credit her solely as Rose would be confusing and misleading to someone without a previous knowledge of the show, b) it would not hurt to list her as also playing the Moment, and c) in a case like this sometimes you must ignore those rules per WP:IAR to make Wikipedia a more correct and accurate repository of information. G S Palmer (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As to point a) Are you saying that readers are supposed to get all there info solely from the infobox? How is it confusing if they don't know anything about the show? If they read the closing credits then they will be confused by adding something that isn't there. If they haven't then they can read the article for the details about how the episode unfolded. b)She did not play, nor was she referred to, the Moment as I pointed out above. c) there is no reason to invoke IAR as the infobox is correct as it stands. The rules do not lead to confusion they lessen it no matter how many times you say that they don't. MarnetteD | Talk 00:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

One last thought. The situation wasn't confusing to the makers of the episode or to the BBC since they produced the closing credits. If you can convince them to change their credits then we can re-examine the listing in the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 01:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to add here in the episode she says I think I am Rose Tyler no I'm Bad Wolf, it is hinted that she is the interface but not explicitly stated like the other two characters. 80.43.248.151 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph

Meanwhile, within UNIT's TARDIS-proofed Black Archive in the Tower of London, Clara learns the Zygons from Elizabethan England have used stasis cubes to enter more three dimensional paintings in the Undergallery. The Zygons have emerged in 2013 and taken the forms of UNIT members so that they could utilise UNIT's weapons and technology. While the three Doctors are in their cell, The Moment encourages the War Doctor to ask them the questions he needs answered before he decides whether or not to destroy Gallifrey. After a tense exchange, during which the tenth is described as the man with regret and the eleventh as the man who forgets, the Doctors mend their differences and use their sonic screwdrivers and the time difference between them to devise an escape plan. The Eleventh Doctor inscribes an activation code in a stone pillar for the vortex manipulator hidden in the Black Archive, Clara obtains the code and uses the manipulator to travel back and meets up with the three Doctors. The Doctors and Clara encounter the real Queen Elizabeth and learn through her of the Zygon scheme to conquer Earth. The Tenth Doctor marries Elizabeth before the three of them with Clara leave in the Tenth Doctor's TARDIS. Kate Stewart also learns of the Zygon plan and locks herself in the Black Archive with them, starting a countdown that will detonate a nuclear warhead underneath the archive that will destroy London and the Zygons. The Doctors, unable to land a TARDIS at the Black Archive due to the Tower being TARDIS proof, instead use the stasis cube technology to enter a painting of Arcadia. They exit the painting in the present in the Black Archive and use the archive's mind-wiping equipment to render the UNIT members and Zygons temporarily unaware which of them are which. The countdown is stopped and all present negotiate a perfectly fair peace treaty, as they no longer know which way to skew it.

Has issues. Stating that the Black archive is tardis proof straight off is wrong IMO as it is not revealed or an issue until they try to land. Second of all Clara does not know of the Zygones in the undergallery Osgood (or whatever her name is discovers this, Clara is unaware) and does not state explicitly that they are mimicking 3 UNIT members. Also I think the paragraph should be broken into smaller paragraphs e.g. Elizabeth tower, present tower, Clara in Elizabeth, present tower stand off with the Tardis break in. Because at the moment it is not particularly clear or factual to the episode imo. 80.43.248.151 (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This WP:WALLOFTEXT is filled with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is your interpretation of the events shown onscreen. There is nothing wrong with your attempts but they don't belong in an encyclopedic article. If you want to share them with people posting them on a blog our your facebook page is the way to go. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So how is this not GA rated yet?

Not sure how many people have been involved here but this article is pretty high-quality.

Looks like it cites one-hundred-and-fourteen (114) references.

How come no one's nominated it for WP:GAN consideration yet?

— Cirt (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Doctor section

I don't understand this line:

"Eleven of the twelve actors who portrayed the different Doctors on-screen are collectively credited as "The Doctor"; Capaldi is uncredited."

There were thirteen actors playing the character in the story, twelve of whom were credited as 'the Doctor'. I tried editing this and it was immediately edited back on the basis that the original version is correct. How so?90.208.24.253 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes actually that does seem correct. Twelve actors are credited as the Doctor. Mezigue (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Three actors with major roles as the Doctor, the rest with cameos which are noted elsewhere in the article. Look at the latest Archived discussions. This issue was thoroughly hashed out there. Sir Rhosis (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That was a broader discussion about how they are billed in the infobox and various sections, wasn't it? But the specific sentence "Eleven of the twelve actors who portrayed the different Doctors on-screen are collectively credited as "The Doctor" " is wrong: twelve are. This is just factual and easy to check: there are 12 names on that credit screen (with Hurt but not Capaldi) Mezigue (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cinema screening in Uruguay

The episode was screened in a theater in Uruguay, simultaneously with the rest of the world, and later on TV. Can the map be edited to reflect this? MaGnUs was here! (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Doctors' credits

The BBC credited all the Doctors, so shouldn't all the Doctors be in the infobox?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 13:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That would make for a pretty overwhelming (and technically incorrect) infobox. Most of the Doctors you refer to make a cameo in the form of archived footage/soundbites. And the article already mentions in the cast section that the twelve actors are "collectively credited" as the Doctor. The Doctors in the infobox are the primary stars of the episode (See "The Name of the Doctor" for how John Hurt is credited), or who otherwise make a noteworthy appearance (i.e. Regeneration, e.g. The End of Time, "The Time of the Doctor"). GabeIglesia (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tom Baker's cameo

Tom Baker's appearance is not a key plot point and does not need to be mentioned in the plot summary (especially a plot summary that exceeds the recommended 700 words). His appearance is already mentioned in more appropriate places such as Cast. DonQuixote (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree on this point (that is, the curator has an appearance to Tom Baker), though the fact that the curator provides 12 with the right title of the work is a key plot element. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Managed to trim it to ~750 words. I think that's good enough in spirit. DonQuixote (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Backward References

Didn't anyone else notice that in Tom Baker's scene there is a mural on the wall consisting of circles within hexagons? This was the wall styling in several of the early versions of the Tardis

Jhlister (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Italics?

Since this was a feature-length production released as a TV-movie special and as a theatrical film, and was not an episode of the regular season (BrEng: series) production run, this should be in italics, not quotation marks, per MOS:TITLES. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 14:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)