Talk:Bad Wolf (entity): Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Question on the Assumption of Reversion of Earths Damage) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Why is this an safe assumption? It is clearly stated in [[The End of the World]] that the [[National Trust]] has the ability to shift back the continents, and that the planet is a "Classic Earth." It would be safe to equally assume that the National Trust has undone any damage from the attack. Is there any particular reason that this assumption is accepted? -- Kooky 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | Why is this an safe assumption? It is clearly stated in [[The End of the World]] that the [[National Trust]] has the ability to shift back the continents, and that the planet is a "Classic Earth." It would be safe to equally assume that the National Trust has undone any damage from the attack. Is there any particular reason that this assumption is accepted? -- Kooky 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:that doesn't seem like a safe assumption to me, either. also, the comment has an out-of-universe reference, which reserve for Real World articles and Behind the Scenes sections. I'll fix it. --[[Special:Contributions/76.24.26.185|76.24.26.185]] 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 2 February 2009
Safe Assumption?
In the article, there is an notation:
- We do not know if she also restored to life the other victims of the Daleks or restored the damage done to Earth itself by Dalek orbital bombardment but it can be assumed she did as the Earth is back to normal by The End Of The World.
Why is this an safe assumption? It is clearly stated in The End of the World that the National Trust has the ability to shift back the continents, and that the planet is a "Classic Earth." It would be safe to equally assume that the National Trust has undone any damage from the attack. Is there any particular reason that this assumption is accepted? -- Kooky 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- that doesn't seem like a safe assumption to me, either. also, the comment has an out-of-universe reference, which reserve for Real World articles and Behind the Scenes sections. I'll fix it. --76.24.26.185 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
