Talk:The End of Time/Archive 3

Broadcast and reception

We've added viewer numbers and critic comments, but is there somewhere were can get viewer opinion from? (I remember reading that at one stage the BBC had a viewer application rating). I ask because I don't know any Dr Who fans who liked this story (think plot hole, ambiguous Rassilon character, drawn out regeneration...). Comments from the critics appear to dismiss these problems with the story. Would fans agree? I doubt it Stormcloud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC).

Continuity Section

NB I've rearranged some of the more specific points into sub-headings of this section, to try and keep things clearer. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, as a starting point, I've removed the stuff about the remote control TARDIS on the grounds that it strays into original research. But I've restored the continuity section that Sceptre removed on the basis that "this type of continuity section is the kind of stuff that gets us in trouble" isn't much of a reason to delete the whole thing. As far as I can see the section as it stands is simply listing things which are self-evidently references to other episodes (either explicitly in the script or in the form of clips). It seems to me that there are two issues here. One, avoiding original research; and two, the suitability of continuity sections in principle. Given that all a lot of the other episode articles seem to have them, it looks like consensus is that they're useful. Personally, I'm not bothered if the section stays or goes, but people are going to keep putting continuity items in unless there's a discussion and some consensus to point them to here. So, please, discuss away. Maccy69 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Doctor Who episodes include Continuity sections. Unless the Doctor Who project has a policy against them I wouldn't go deleting them but critics certainly require episode citations (they massively help with verifiability) and if external reference are available to establish notability that is even better. -- Horkana (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WHO#MOS. Continuity sections are tolerated, but are encouraged to be short as possible and to mention everything prosaically, not in a bulleted list. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes things much clearer. I'm inclined to think that rewriting the section (as has been done) is better than deleting it. Maccy69 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Remote Control TARDIS

Dear all,

Should we not mention that the Doctor is suddenly able to remote control his TARDIS when it is mentioned as a very difficult thing to do in Mark of the Rani (the Doctor being very impressed with the Rani for mastering this technology). I mention this without knowledge of the books and comics where this may have been explored but it has not been seen in the new series until now. There may be more of an explaination for it in part two but its very happening is surely worth mentioning (perhaps in a continuity section with a reference to Mark of the Rani?).

Regards,
Thetictocmonkey 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, he only detaches it from real-time by one second; I'm not sure that that really goes against Mark of the Rani... ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, he could have upgraded his TARDIS since Mark of the Rani. It also has a number of other features now that it didn't have previously. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware he has upgraded it but this feature has not been seen on screen and is therefore worth mentioning. I also realised that it was nowhere near as advanced as the Rani but there is a clear connection. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that there has been no further contest to my suggestion I have added it to the article. Regards, Thetictocmonkey 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, we need to avoid these continuity sections. They may exist in other articles, but given this is the last TEnnent episode, I suspect that we will likely get it to FA as soon as possible, which these sections are not used in. Secondly, the statement is wrong. The Doctor has remotely operated the TARDIS at least once before in the New Series, namely Utopia (that to lock the TARDIS between the two time periods); the suggestion that there's a connection to non-canon media is tenacious and is strongly bordering on original research which is why these sections are generally discouraged. Now, if a secondary source notes the remote operation and the like, that can be included in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good thing or not, please everyone stop edit warring about that section. If you feel strongly about it, discuss it here first. Regards SoWhy 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss this as part of a general discussion of the continuity section, which I'm about to start, below. For that reason, I'm archiving this bit. Maccy69 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please do not modify" on a discussion from the same day is ridiculous and very much anti-discussion to attempt to close down any room for disagreement in such a short time. You should at least start another section and try to change the subject before asserting this discussion closed.
Other television articles do include continuity sections, so a lot depends on whether other Doctor Who articles generally include them, but even if they do not then we should still try to help a the editor to include his good faith addition in a more appropriate way, rather than deleting. A citation needed tag would be appropriate if you feel this needs external reference.
I've no great interest in the content of the section, perhaps it is not notable but I hate to see an editor who asked for feedback first and then made a good faith effort not even getting a fair chance to correct and improve his work. Even moving the section back to the talk page rather than outright deleting it would have given him a better chance to improve or discuss it and for other editors to try and help with cleanup or find sources. -- Horkana (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to close down discussion, I just thought it would be better to include it in a general discussion of continuity. I thought we were running the risk of getting muddled between original research in particular and continuity sections in general. I don't see the problem in continuing to discuss the specific idea about remote-control TARDIS as part of a general discussion about continuity. Then, it's all in one place under a simple heading "continuity" that we can point editors to in the future. To this end, is it OK if I copy your comment to the section below? Maccy69 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've removed the archive and made this into a sub-section of the continuity discussion. I've moved your points about this as well, to just below. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Before deleting please advise the editor on how he might rephrase the section on Remote control TARDIS to avoid speculative words. Someone suggested it made an incorrect assertion, it may still have held some truth without being the whole truth (something about "Utopia" was truncated in the edit summary). Again a rephrase might be allow the editor to include the point he was trying to make, and an earlier instance of remote control TARDIS might simply add to his point. I did have a quick look to see if I could find references to help backup the point. You never know, maybe it is Chekov's gun and the remote control will be a plot point in the next episode, or maybe someone just like the idea of the Doctor closing the door like it was a car. -- Horkana (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that nobody other than that particular editor has made a connection between the Doctor remotely locking the TARDIS and the Rani having a different form of remote control in another story. Without a reliable source making this connection, it's synthesis at the very least. For this reason, the section cannot be rephrased to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There's a long discussion about continuity in Doctor Who articles here. Maccy69 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add: it's extremely unlikely that any media review is going to mention continuity points. Until someone notable writes a book on all of this, the "Fact Files" on the official site are pretty much the only place to look (the "End of Time, Part One" one is here). And it just isn't feasible to have a big section of fan speculation with "citation needed" next to nearly every point. The editor concerned did exactly the right thing by raising it here first, it's just a shame that he didn't wait a bit longer before making the edit. Still, it's good to be bold but you shouldn't be upset if you get reverted. Maccy69 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with your tone about my edit and my reaction to its unilateral deletion. Your comments are unhelpful and not in good faith. Please try and follow the guidelines above about being polite in this discussion. We are all working together to create the best article we can and insulting other editors is not conducive to this. I was not "upset" about the deletion of my edit, I simply wanted to understand why it had been done and asked the person who undid it to give full reason for it. I am, however, upset by your comments made here in bad faith. I also waited a fair ammount of time before making my edit and it then sparked further discussion and editing which I think we can agree is good and helpful.

Yours in good faith,

Thetictocmonkey —Preceding undated comment added 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

OK, that may have been bad phrasing on my part, I apologise. Horkana seemed to be getting upset on you behalf, suggesting that we should leave your edit in, apparently to spare your feelings. I wasn't suggesting that deleting it had made you upset, quite the opposite. I was simply suggesting that reverting someone's edit is normal procedure when it comes to original research. I was also trying to explain why it wasn't practical to leave the edit in and try and rephrase it. For the record, I do think the previous reasons given for removing it are far more debatable - but that the original research trumps all of that, and I wish it had been used as the reason from the start. I also don't think you acted in bad faith and I'm honestly at a loss to see how you deduced that from what I wrote. However, I apologise unreservedly for giving you that impression. Still, I think it's clear that the edit is not suitable for inclusion, so there isn't much more to discuss on this. If you think my reasoning is wrong, you should probably start a new thread below stating why the stuff about remote control TARDISes isn't original research. I'll let other editors debate it with you. If you want, though, I can rescue your original wording and paste it into the this discussion. That aside, that's it from me in this discussion. All the best. Maccy69 (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Maccy69, I see that I misunderstood you to some extent and I apologise for that. I also accept your apology and I hope their is no more bad feeling between us. It would be great if you paste my edit into here so that it could be discussed and hopefully reworded so it can be included. I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia and any advice is very welcome.
Blessings and regards,
Thetictocmonkey 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It's easy to get the wrong end of the stick in a written format. No harm done, and there was never any bad feeling on my part. For reference, you can always find old edits in the history, even if they've been reverted, so I found yours here. Here it is, for discussion:

• The Doctor is shown to remotely control his TARDIS for the first time on screen. In Mark of the Rani he is impressed at the Rani's capability to do this using a Stattenheim remote control. However, the Doctor's remote control capabilities are not nearly as advanced: he is seen only to lock the TARDIS and to place it one second out of sync with time. The Doctor has a Stattenheim remote control in the spin-off media however this is of questionable canonicity.

Personally, I think you're on a hiding to nothing with this particular entry, but I'm bowing out of the discussion. I strongly suggest you read about original research (particularly the section on synthesis) and reliable sources before discussing this. You may also want to read a long discussion on a similar theme here. I think its also worth considering http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Doctor_Who_Wiki, which has different policies to Wikipedia and is more geared towards fans. Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Id actually say that its not remote control; but rather similar to what the Master did to the Doctors Tardis in 'The Keeper of Traken' putting it a second out of sync. Mainly because the Rani had full remote control of her Tardis; being able to set the cordinates and make it take off. Otherwise you can say the Dr has remote controlled his tardis previously; ie locking the controls in Utopia, clicking of the fingers in forest of the dead; having his tardis land on earth in Voyage of the Damned, or auto locking the tardis like a car in the End of Time, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.195.42 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He Man/Skeletor

the dr called master sceletor a refrance to heman and the MASTERs of the universe that should be on refrance section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-worded your title and added this to the general continuity discussion. I hope that's OK. I think it's true that there's an unambiguous reference to Skeletor in the script. The question is, is it important enough to go in the article? I'm not sure. Maccy69 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't. Little in-jokes or just figures of speech like that really aren't notable or important for WP article (and yes, WP is littered with them). GedUK  14:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP was littered with them in the good old days. --86.133.229.115 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. While it's a clear He-Man reference, it's an offhand line that doesn't have significance to the plot. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the master calling dr gandalf was notable 4 Last of The Time Lords thats why i said it lol or i wouldnt have hehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.47.180 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rassilon

Just to be clear, the Doctor did say before the Time Lord President vanished that he was Rassilon. Contrary to an earlier revision, however, there's no Glove of Rassilon – it's a prediction based on a naming pattern of many items associated with Rassilon, but it's unconfirmed. And yes, this Time Lord President being Rassilon is extremely non-trivial – even within the Time Lord timeline, he should've been long, long dead. 86.159.111.21 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't say he was Rasillon, he called him Rasillon. I could call you Rasillon, doesn't mean you are. It's just Russell fanwanking one last time. GedUK  20:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The distinction, insofar as it can be considered important, is why I recommend (and have added) language like 'identified by the Doctor as Rassilon' – indicating that it was the Doctor's claim. Nonetheless, there's little reason to dispute the Doctor's authority in identifying Rassilon. He called him Rassilon for a reason, and the most probable reason is that he was confident he was Rassilon. Elyssaen (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it probably is Rasillon; I'm 99% sure, 99.9% even. But this is Wikipedia, not GallifreyOne or a Dr Who wikia (the name escapes me). It needs a source. I like your 'identified as' solution. GedUK  21:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GED, we cannot say he is Rassilon. I think he was comparing him to Rassilon. It is possible the Time Lords resurrected Rassilon to lead them in the Time War. But all this is speculation, not fact. Thetictocmonkey 21:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since he is not positively identified as Rassilon in the credits ("The Narrator" for Part One, "Lord President" for Part Two, nothing more), labelling Dalton's character as Rassilon is currently not verifiable. SuperMarioMan (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Thetictocmonkey 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree - I think it is reasonable to note that the doctor called the individual "Rassilon" (in terms of verification, the episode is available for review online on BBC iPlayer). It has the potential to acquire future relevance and is worth cataloguing.

I think that the latest edit on this subject is very good. - Thetictocmonkey 21:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

On Dr Who Condfidential; RTD calls him Rassilon. But as I don't wanna fall foul of die-hard Dr. Who editors (you know who you are!), I'll let someone else add it in if they want. steveking89 00:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree though. If RTD calls him Rassilon on Confidential, it's as reliable as it can be. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but on the other hand, Dalton was credited as "Lord President" – one has to wonder why... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 12:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But that would be speculation again. ;-) Regards SoWhy 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO he's clearly a Rassilon, as the Doctor and RTD call him that. Whether he's the Rassilon is debatable, but naming him as Rassilon is pretty clear cut as fine I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put him as Lord President with a link to Rassilon. Following the credits as far as is correct is what should be done I say. I removed the Narrator name as part 2 makes it pretty clear that that is not his name or title, and was used to cover is role among the Time Lords until yesterday. U-Mos (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an obiqutous link, so I removed it; it is already linked in the Continuity section. And he is credited as "The Narrator" in Part One, so I restored that as well. — Edokter • Talk • 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I never saw any reason why we should stick to cast lists where reliable sources are less ambiguous. For example, in "Journey's End", the "Chinese Woman" is called "Anna Zhou". Hence, I'd support calling him "The Narrator/Lord President Rassilon". Sceptre ^(talk) 21:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Without an explicit reliable source, there is no reason to assume that it may not have been intended as a metaphor, just like the reference to Weeping Angels. RTD also said the hand that picked up the Master's ring was "the Rani" - that too was not literal.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it were a single reference onscreen that would be reasonable. But the guy who wrote the script referred to him as Rassilon several times... -mattbuck (Talk) 11:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As the previous Rassilon continuity reference did not mention the significance of the name, and would seem very trivial to anyone not already familiar with the character, I have now edited this, still allowing for open interpretation, but now supplying information about who most people seem to assume Timothy Dalton's character was.
--BadWolfTV (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Selfless Master

The article currently says "but at which point the Master, in a selfless of bravery, uses the last of his lifeforce to blast the Lord President back into the Time War" however my reading of the program, which was confirmed by Russell T Davis in COnfidential was that this was an act of revenge against the people that have caused him so much pain for so long. Jasonfward (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Master's years of evil madness may have been caused by his people, but he was still evil and mad. A selfless act is entirely uncharacteristic. - Thetictocmonkey 21:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We also don't know that it's the last of his lifeforce. I'd be amazed if he didn't come back at some point. GedUK  21:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, he always does!!! Thetictocmonkey 22:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the article to remove the "selfless act" reference pending the conclusion of this discussion. I left the "last of life force" in however. - Thetictocmonkey 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove that as well. We simply don't know what happens to him or the Time Lords, it just explodes and gone they are... Regards SoWhy 22:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Gone they are", turning into Yoda are you? :p GedUK  22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you discovered my secret identity! SoWhy 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, the Master's actions actually aren't uncharacteristic. There is a history of the Doctor and the Master teaming up to defeat a common enemy, something Rusty pointed out on Confidential. Whether it's selfless or not is another matter entirely. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

He He I was the one who added in the selfless part :D --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blink Reference

Not really sure if there is a good place for this in the article, but there is a "Sally" on the "Sparrow" line bus 18 minutes into part one. A subtle reference to the episode "Blink", where the main character is "Sally Sparrow". ConnertheCat 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I just saw it, too. "Sparrow lane". Especially with the two women holding their hands like the weeping angels. But do you think "social touring for the over..." (rest I can't read) fits in this possibility?

--85.180.227.49 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (sorry, no en.wiki-account)

There is a definite Blink reference in Part 2; Rassilon makes reference to the "Weeping Angels of old". BBC iPlayer's subtitles capitalise it. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be absolutely accurate and pedantic, that's not a reference to Blink (Dalton hasn't seen the episode); if anything, it's a reference to the Weeping Angels 'as featured in'... ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Verity Lambert/ Family of Blood Reference

Sorry, what happend to the VL-Reference? Or did I rd this in an other thread? Call mer Donna, because of hangovers :-) --85.180.227.49 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My note on it was removed as being speculation. I realise there's little evidence for it, but that's because it doesn't really need any, surely? Two of the most important people in the show's history are referenced in the name of a character. It's a bit like someone in a political thriller about the Iraq invasion being called George Blair. So blindingly obvious that no-one is likely to need to confirm or deny it. --Crgn (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's blindingly obvious to dedicated Doctor Who fans, but not necessarily to general viewers of the episode or readers of this article. It seems that someone's restored the explanation for the name using the io9 reference, which I think is fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Donna's Wedding

The entry states "giving Wilf and Sylvia Noble a winning lottery ticket to give to Donna". Was it confirmed anywhere (this ep or confidential etc)that it was a winning ticket? Swampy 139.168.137.237 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember it being confirmed, but the implication was that it is. You know, the Doctor being able to travel in time and whatnot. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

RTD makes it pretty clear it was in Confidential, Thetictocmonkey 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Harriet Jones

According to this source (which I'm not sure is reliable; probably ought to investigate that first), Harriet Jones was supposed to be in this episode. I honestly cannot remember seeing her (which would make sense; she's dead), but I was wondering if anyone else did. NW (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably the fault of IMDB. There's no point in her returning, either; her story is definitively and satisfyingly over after dying. Same with Martha and Mickey (freelancing as alien hunters), Donna and co (married and rich), and Rose (with Handy in the parallel universe). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Time Lock (End of Time Part 2)

Re Part 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Time#Part_Two

"The President, vowing to not let himself die, places Gallifrey and many other terrors in a "Time Lock". "

That is not correct... The Lord President did not place Gallifrey in a Time Lock. The whole Time War was already in a Time Lock, as established by various previous episodes of New Who.

Furthermore, why on Earth would the Lord President place Gallifrey in a Time Lock, only to then come up with a convoluted means of escaping said same Time Lock? If there were no Time Lock initially, the Time Lords would simply have escaped already, avoiding their death at the hands of the Doctor, rather than put themselves in a lock and then try & find a way out of it.

The whole point was that they (in fact the whole Time War) were already trapped within a Time Lock, and needed a way to escape it (after the Visionary said that it was the last day of the war & the Doctor would burn them all). Hence sending the drum-beat signal back to the Master as a child, & then sending the diamond through to create a more physical link.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO your explanation makes sense. Try watching tha part again? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back to an older version of that paragraph, but it needs some rewording. Anyone want to propose a draft version here? NW (Talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that version's any better really - it still states that the Lord President created the Time Lock, which is simply not correct, but it also goes back to saying that the Master sacrificed himself for the Doctor (he didn't - he did it as a last act of revenge, not a sacrifice to save the Doctor. I think there's already Talk for this, & I'm sure RTD said it was revenge).

It's late now, but I'll have a think tomorrow about re-wording the Time Lock section if no one else has done it.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just done an edit now.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the editing of the section in question... I have no problem with people editing my edit for the sake of brevity, but if people want to make it shorter & more to the point, could they please at least keep it accurate, rather than reverting to incorrect earlier versions? As mentioned above, the Lord President did *not* create the Time Lock. The whole Time War was already trapped in it, as mentioned in the episode, and as mentioned in earlier episodes. The Lord President was trying to find a way to *escape* the Time Lock. It is utterly illogical that he would put Gallifrey and "other terrors" inside a Time Lock himself only to then come up with a convoluted plan to escape said same Time Lock. If there were no Time Lock to begin with, the President & other Time Lords would simply have used more normal means to escape their death at the hands of the Doctor, they would no trap themselves & then try & find a way out of their own trap. Watch the episode again, it's on iPlayer.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And is this really a flashback or a meanwhile? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO it's a "meanwhile", not a flashback. It's a timetravel show... The Time Lord Council scenes on Gallifrey are happening at the same time as the present-day Earth scenes. It's all at the same time.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But the current version of the article imply it is a flashback! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hah true. I did change that on one of my earlier edits, must have forgotten to do it last time. I see you've changed it now.

btw, I think it should still mention *why* they urgently want to escape the Time Lock... as they (rightly) fear the Doctor is going to destroy them all as well as the Daleks.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool.

ShatteredPlastic (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Diamond shooting star

When the Lord President throws the diamond, the shooting star is shown to be simultaneously appearing. Is these two events happening at the same time? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In use

Please don't edit when the {{in use}} template is there!!! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that you placed that template on the article when myself and two other anonymous users were editing the article? NW (Talk) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought the your edits were done. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Run-ons

I feel that there are many run-ons in this article. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Brevity question

I was wondering if, and one will pardon the expression, as times goes on, the Plot section will get more detail. I understand this is an encyclopaedia and not a fan site, but considering the major elements involved (the Master, Time Lords, last Tennant episode for a few), it would seem to benefit from more detail. Certainly the whole Time Lock thing would benefit from expansion. In watching the article evolve (and my apologies, as since I started typing this it seems the ending of Part 2 has gotten a bit more added), it seems some things have been unduly compressed, such as the restoration of the Master.

Again, I do understand the nature of this site, and that you folk are very kind in giving your time and effort to work on this. I, and many others who never say it, do owe a lot to you all. Hopefully this request will be accepted and acted upon.

Grazie mille LMB02 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And since I posted this, the expansion on the companions is again gone... I saw the revision comment that removed them said they should be in the Continuity section, but I thought I read earlier on this discussion page that Continuity sections were to be brief, if used at all. LMB02 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Plot section is still way way too long - have people read Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary at all? Etrigan (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rassilon

According to the last Doctor Who Confidential of Season 4 (Allons-Y) it is Rassilon. The Lord President/Narrator is referred to as Rassilon by Russell T. Davies in multiple instances. --Xero (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See #Rassilon above. I have already made the change to the infobox with this source. Regards SoWhy 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course The Lord President is Rassilon. This is a work of fiction it does not require a secondry source and if some editors think it does then confidential is the secondary source as that programme is not a work of fiction.

Is it the original "Rassilon" back from the dead, or just another Time Lord with the same name? Stormcloud (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)