|
|
| (37 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Is there a reference for this? Some we know as fact, some not, but referencing is required.--[[User:Hawki|Hawki]] 10:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
| | {{ArchCat}} |
|
| |
|
| :yes - it's [http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/09_september/23/who.shtml here] [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 10:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
| | So, officially, the largest thing the Doctor has ever pulled out of his pocket is the UV lamp in the episode "Vampires of Venice". However, the in the scene where he is going to save Jackson Lake's son, the Doctor pulls a sword out of his pocket. I have watched that scene over and over and I am absolutely sure he pulls the sword out of his pocket. Is the sword not bigger than the UV lamp? [[User:Masterpwn|Masterpwn]] [[User talk:Masterpwn|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 23:50, March 21, 2014 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == No == | | == Li H'sen Chang poster == |
| | | [[File:Li H'sen Chang poster (TND).jpg|right|thumb|Li H'sen Chang poster in ''The Next Doctor''.]] |
| This doesn't warrant for an episode or something called The Next Doctor.
| | [[File:Lego Dimensions Talons of Weng chian poster.jpg|left|thumb|Li H'sen Chang poster in LEGO Dimensions.]] |
| :Why not? [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 12:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
| | I don't know if this has been mentioned before (it doesn't appear on the main page or archived talk page for this episode) but at runtime 47:22 there appears to be a poster referencing [[Li H'sen Chang]]. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:26, June 2, 2020 (UTC) |
| ::I'm not quite sure what the unsigned comment is supposed to be about. As Jack indicates, the episode title has been confirmed, so it's legitimate - as legitimate as having an article on [[The Last Sontaran]]. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Rumors==
| |
| Obviously with a title like The Next Doctor the rumor mill is going to be churning fast and furious regarding whether Tennant is leaving, or whatever. Remember that Gardner has said he's in all the 2009 specials so it's anyone's guess what the title means. This article will need to be checked to watch out for speculation (I just removed Morissey from the companion column of the infobox, for example). Until RTD makes an announcement, or reputable media (not tabloid) reports some verifiable facts, or - of course - the episode airs any rumors should be confined to the rumors section. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| * Well that took about 10 seconds. An anonymous IP just added "The Doctor" next to Morissey's name. Sigh. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :So? If Morrisey's character is oficially called 'The Doctor', then I see no problem with crediting him in this way. Besides, he was credited as 'The Doctor' in the Radio Times. [[User:Sir Hat-a-lot|Sir Hat-a-lot]] 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Morrissey is The Doctor.Well, one of them. That's why I changed it. Look on the official BBC Doctor Who website. My account isn't signed in and I forgot the password, that's why it isn't showing up.
| |
| * I saw the BBC article. Fair enough, however the article only says Morrisey plays a man who calls himself The Doctor. That means something entirely different. I just bought DWM 400 which has Tennant talking about filming the specials in January, so unless they're pulling a River Song on us, we have no idea whether this is ''The'' Doctor. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 05:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| *Unless a source can be cited, should we allow anyone to add so called rumors willy nilly? Most of the 'rumors' on this page are just personal supposition in my view, and shouldn't be allowed on here.[[User:Smokin Fish|Smokin Fish]] 07:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Well I'm not entirely happy with such a section myself. I did start it just to have some place for the amount of unsourced information going into the articles, but I would be quite happy if it wasn't there at all. [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 10:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Why is it called this? ==
| |
| | |
| I don't understand that if the Doctor doesn't regenerate and David Morrissey is not the doctor, then how come this episode s called: "The Next Doctor"? -[[User:The Doctor Forever|The Doctor Forever]] 06:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) | |
| | |
| :If you're curious check out [[Wikipedia:The Next Doctor|Wikipedia - The Next Doctor]] contains some additional information. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 07:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Companion in infobox==
| |
| I removed the character name from this infobox. None of the confirmed reports have identified any character in the special as a companion yet. For all we know the Morrissey Doctor could end up being a companion. Obviously if a reputable source (the BBC, RTD, DWM, etc) have indicated otherwise, then that's different (probably good to include a link if a name is added to the infobox, however). [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
| |
| * There are clues in the CiN preview that suggest Rosita may be the companion of the Morrissey Doctor, though as always there's no way to know what's going on until the show airs. The info I removed from the infobox earlier had Rosita listed as the Tenth Doctor's companion. That's still speculation and listing her as a companion for anyone is still premature; ditto listing Morrissey's character as such. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Synopsis ==
| |
| | |
| A user keeps inserting text into the Synopsis, should this be done or should we wait until we learn abit more than Mrs Rositia is working for the Cybermen and the CyberKing??? [[User:Bigshowbower|Bigshowbower]] 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Well there is an official press release with the Synopsis in it, and I think it's coming from there. I would agree thet it shouldn't be copied directly, but we can still use that as a basis. [[User:Jack's the man|Jack's]] [[User talk:Jack's the man|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Jack's the man|man]] - 11:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| What about if the user inserts the text but re writes it into a better version and provides a link to the offical press release instead of just a heading before the text saying From the BBC Office [[User:Bigshowbower|Bigshowbower]] 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :That really long, capitalised "Doctor" 'scream' in the synopsis looks ridiculous - can we change it please? [[User:CommodoreFisher|CommodoreFisher]] 23:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==RTD "undoing all he has done" statement==
| |
| I removed a line from the rumors section saying that RTD has been quoted as saying he wants to undo all that he has done re:TimeLords. That sounds pretty dubious, and without a source cited, it actually comes close to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP BLP]-violating territory. This isn't Wikipedia, but we still need to follow some of their guidelines, and a statement like that is one that runs afoul of BLP. If RTD has actually said somewhere that he wants to "undo all that he has done" which doesn't sound very likely, then we need to cite where and when. Even in the context of a rumor, I had to take it out. Now, it's possible that a ''separate'' rumor suggesting RTD wants to undo what he's done, could be added. However we'd still need to identify exactly where he was quoted. Also, RTD is known for making off-the-cuff remarks that mean nothing, so an offhand statement in an interview, at a convention, or in his book does not necessarily mean that's his intent. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Meddling Monk Possibility? ==
| |
| | |
| One of my favorite characters was the Meddling Monk. Anyone think that this could be him? - Dallas(Long Time Fan)
| |
| | |
| == Vandalism ==
| |
| | |
| I removed what I assumed is vandalism. But I haven't seen this episode yet ('cause I'm American), so I could be wrong. --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 18:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == The everlasting debate ==
| |
| | |
| So, is Jackson Lake a companion? He was in the opening credits, was featured as much as companions like Astrid Peth, isn't the Doctor, and has even been in the TARDIS. I'd say he's as much of a companion as Astrid is. [[User:Flicky1991|Flicky1991]] 19:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| : Fan debate is irrelevant if he's officially considered one. --[[User:Golden Monkey|Golden Monkey]] 19:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :: Which certainly applies to Astrid, Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway, etc. But in this case, is he actually considered one? Consider that the previous Christmas special one-offs, Donna and Astrid, were both invited to become travelling companions of the Doctor. Jackson was not, and the fact he had a son made him ineligible to become one. The girl, of course, was ''Jackson's'' companion, so she doesn't count. As with the others, I'd go with whatever the official party line is. The only one-off who is not considered officially a companion, but who I consider to be one, is Sally Sparrow. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Just for reference == | |
| | |
| Does anyone know how to spell Miss Hartigan's first name? [[User:Sir Hat-a-lot|Bad Wolf Bad Wolf]] 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Bad Wolf its Mercy
| |
| | |
| == Continuity ==
| |
| | |
| How you can you tell what episode the Doctor's are from, I havent seen this episode yet but I have seen the pictures that include the Doctors from the infostamp but the only one who can placed is Paul McGann so all the others are guessing should that be there or wait until we get some official confirment? [[User:Bigshowbower|Bigshowbower]] 05:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| * Trekkies can often identify individual episodes simply from single frames, so the same is true of Whovians, especially given, for example, the fact that the Hartnell clip comes from an episode only recently released to DVD. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Series 4 vs. Specials ==
| |
| A few places on this Wiki have referred to TND as being part of Series 4. Although it was ''produced'' during the same production block as Series 4, I've seen nothing to indicate that this is not considered one of the "gap year specials", much as Voyage of the Damned is considered part of Series 4 -- the series that ''followed'' it. Plus, dramatically, it is clearly placed after the events of Series 4, much as Runaway Bride could never have been considered part of Series 2. If there's a reputable source (i.e. DWM, etc) that indicates that Next Doctor is actually part of Series 4 -- in which case the question must be asked why the "Complete Series 4" box set was released weeks earlier -- think about it -- then of course I'm willing to stand corrected. In the meantime I've made the appropriate changes. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
| * Someone, possibly an anonymous IP, changed it back to Series 4 and I've changed it back to Specials and added an embedded note. Again, unless there has been indication that this is considered part of Series 4, it shouldn't be listed as such, regardless when it was filmed. [[Terror of the Zygons]] is not considered part of [[Season 12]], even though it was filmed then and originally scheduled to air in 12. It aired in [[Season 13]] and is considered part of that season. There's the precedent for ''The Next Doctor'' to be considered part of the [[2009 Specials]] season (which needs a better name); if the gap year comes to be known as Season 4.5 I'll be fine with that, but for now there is no official designator. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Series 4 vs. Specials ==
| |
| | |
| please remove the embedding note because it has been confirmed by bbc iplayer that it is part of series 4.
| |
.jpg)
