Talk:Death of the Doctor (TV story)

Keep calm and stay focused.

Please abide by our discussion policy and be nice to other editors in this discussion. Remember: this talk page is only for discussing the editing of the attached article. Take speculation to The Howling, our general discussion forum. Messages not having to do with the improvement of the article may be deleted.

This is a real story, why is the page being deleted (also when deleting a page you have to explain in your summary why you are deleting the page) Springwood1984 21:40, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Happy now? The page is barren and the infobox is wrong. There is not much information available at the moment and it is only an infobox with a few rumours. User:Solar Dragon/Signature 21:55, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Then fix the info box, and let people fill the information in. Deleting it will only lead to someone else making a new page for it, since DWM has announced the name of the episode. Lokiofmidgaard 21:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Typically, in the past, pages have been made for upcoming episodes as soon as the titles of those episodes were revealed. There were pages for "The Vampires of Venice", "Vincent and the Doctor", and "The Big Bang" long before we knew any definite details for those episodes. There really ought to be pages for all the Sarah Jane series 4 episodes now. And even if we wait on those, the Doctor's appearance in "Death of the Doctor" makes it important enough to have a page dedicated to it now. Bluebox444 22:01, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Prop delete, again

The example cited above of The Vampires of Venice is actually an argument against the existence of this page at this very early stage. Episode names do change, even as late as the date of transmission. Or, as with The Pandorica Opens, there's the possibility that the title might be the name of an actual item in the DWU and we might have to go back and changes lots of pages. For all we know, Death of the Doctor is the name of a book in the DWU. Impatience only creates additional work. I suggest that this, and all SJA series 4 episode pages should be deleted at this stage. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 22:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

"The example cited above of The Vampires of Venice is actually an argument against the existence of this page at this very early stage. Episode names do change, even as late as the date of transmission. "

By that logic, there's no point creating a page for any episode until after it has aired. If the episode title changes, set up a redirect, it's not that hard.

"Or, as with The Pandorica Opens, there's the possibility that the title might be the name of an actual item in the DWU and we might have to go back and changes lots of pages."

Though it's highly doubtful a device would have the name "Death of the Doctor", in this kind of case you simply make a disambiguation page, and let people fix links over time - that's the whole advantage of a wiki site. So I don't see the need to delete this page. You talk about creating more work - deleting it will do that, because I guarantee you that again and again different contributors will come in unaware why the old one was deleted and recreate it from scratch. Lokiofmidgaard 22:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the deletion. Even the series 5 ones weren't created this early. The episode won't even air until the fall. There is no point speculating who will be in the episode, who won't, and there's only two rumours on the main body of the article (which don't even have sources). There's no point in having it. The Thirteenth Doctor 22:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

"By that logic, there's no point creating a page for any episode until after it has aired. If the episode title changes, set up a redirect, it's not that hard."

That is exactly what I'm saying. There's no point creating a page for any episode until after it has aired. You make it sound like all you have to is create a redirect and — voila! —it's all done. But it's much more than that. It's finding every instance of the wrong title on the wiki and changing it. Even with a bot it's a good day's work. Without a bot, it's potentially a much longer job, depending on how many links are made to the wrong title. You say "let people fix links over time", but do you have any idea how truly tedious that is? It's far, far easier to just keep deleting one page than to have links sprouting up all over the place. There were hundreds of links to The Pandorica Opens before they were stopped and reverted. Likewise, there were tons of links to Vampires of Venice and some to Vampires in Venice before we got broadcast confirmation that the actual name of the episode was The Vampires of Venice. Though I'm constantly doing it, I'm honestly not thrilled about cleaning up messes like this which are caused be simple impatience. It is better to be accurate than to be first. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 22:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

And I reiterate - all deleting it will do is see it get constantly recreated by one user after another. "You make it sound like all you have to is create a redirect and — voila! —it's all done." Yes, it is, in some respects. Any wrong link will go to the correct page, which sorts the main problem - fixing links can then be done over time. Plus, there should be redirect or disambiguation pages, as the case may be, for working titles or common misnamings. And yes, I do know how tedious fixing links can be - but who said you had to be the only one doing it? You see the creation of this page as impatience. It's not. It's human nature, the desire to be up to date combined with the ease of creating something on a wiki. Once people know the name, people are going to want to start filling in the info, adding in new info as it comes out. Lokiofmidgaard 22:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what CzechOut said? It takes ages to fix incorrect links, even with them being fixed automatically, and it is both very annoying and tiring. The page will be deleted and locked so that no-one can create it. The Thirteenth Doctor 23:32, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

No, wrong links won't necessarily go to the correct page under your idea. There are two things that could happen under your idea of "creating now, move later":

1. If we later move Death of the Doctor to a disambig page, then these links will go to the disambig page, which is a bad link. And the thing is, they'll be harder to notice as errors because they'll be blue links.
2. If we later move Death of the Doctor to, let's say, The Death of the Doctor, you say that's basically okay because at least it's still blue-linked to the right page. But I say that's still a problem because the link issue is secondary. Now the article has an inaccuracy in it. But again, it looks fine, because there's a blue link.

While I understand the point that it might be nice if we allowed lots of alternative links to things, based upon common misspellings — in that it makes searching slightly easier — it has the serious downside of allowing articles to become populated with blue-links to misspellings, which wholly negates any searching advantage. I mean, it's possible for someone to believe that the name is Padraig Trowton or even John Pertwee — and therefore to put that in the search box — but we don't want to allow people that link for Patrick Troughton and Jon Pertwee. As an encyclopedia, we do have a duty to be accurate, not approximately accurate. Likewise, there are plenty of instances where the placement of an article, like "the" or "an", is absolutely critical The Daleks is a materially different thing than Daleks, for instance. And we don't want to give the impression that we believe The Inferno, The Pyramids of Mars, or Ribos Operation are proper titles. Spelling and accuracy "count" here. Allowing approximate titles of topics is the death knell of accuracy. Allow them, and you'll start to see articles absolutely riddled with lots of misspellings being given the "authority" of a blue link. It's fine to shorten a name once you've already established the full name at the top of an article, but you don't need to start the article off on the wrong foot by being allowed to blue link to a misspelling or misnaming. If you wouldn't allow The Unearthly Child — and who among us would, really? — then the most sensible thing to do is to wait and know for sure what the name of the episode actually is. Just because an episode is new doesn't exempt us from taking the same hard line on its allowable redirects that we use for episodes from 50 years ago. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 23:54, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with CzechOut. No episode article should be made until the episode airs. To stop it being created continuously, protect the page! As simple as that. Then unprotect it as the title comes up on the screen. Simples! Also, all that is in the article is an uncomfirmed cast (who knows who will appear apart from the guest stars). And it is a tedious task of changing links. Lokiofmidgaard, what you are saying is that you want there to be wrong names on the wiki and it is fine as long as they link to the correct page? That is stupid to me. The page should be deleted and protected to stop it from being created again. Who knows, it may change near the time to The Death of the Doctor or something. User:Solar Dragon/Signature 07:17, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I notice that despite there being no consensus to delete (three posters for, three against), someone deleted the entry. Charming. In other words, "Please discuss whether or not to delete, but be aware that we won't wait for a consensus because opinions that differ from the ours don't count." Re: "John Pertwee" and "As an encyclopedia, we do have a duty to be accurate, not approximately accurate." Then you set up pages for the misspellings, where you have "John Pertwee. There is no actor or character of that name pertaining to Dr. Who. Do you mean Jon Pertwee? Please redirect links on any page where the wrong spelling has been used to the correct one." And then every so often you check the John Pertwee page and use the "check which pages link to this article" feature to find where people have spelled it wrong.

"Lokiofmidgaard, what you are saying is that you want there to be wrong names on the wiki and it is fine as long as they link to the correct page? " No, I'd prefer the names to be right. But I also prefer that when there is a common incorrect name that it gets the person searching to the right page, rather than have people unable to find articles. There should be a page for "Peter Davidson" that gets the person searching for the actor who played the fifth Doctor to Peter Davison. Lokiofmidgaard 10:15, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Cut it out with the proposed deletions. And this time, lets discuss this rather than just automatically deleting it - I notice the distinct lack of manners of those who want the page deleted, ignoring the debate once they'd gotten the entry prematurely deleted mid-discussion. I said above that if the page was deleted, people would just reinstate it, and looking at the history you'll see that I was right - it's been deleted something like four times now, and each time someone new has come along to remake it. Since contributors to the page presumably are people in favour of keeping it, you'll see they outnumber the four who seem to favour deletion. The consensus seems to be for keeping it. The arguements for deleting it seem to be "there's not much info here" - well, that's going to change over time; and "the name might change so we shouldn't even create a page until the episode airs". That falls down on many counts. Practical: unless you lock the page, people will just keep recreating it. Policy - the site doesn't have any "don't create in case the name changes" policy, so this seems to be a personal desire of three or four editors, at odds with a larger number of editors. Belief of ownership - "if we make it and the name changes then I don't want to have to fix a load of links" - who made it your job to fix the links? If you don't like doing it, let other people handle it. Accuracy (if the name changes) - first, the arguement that it might change names frankly hits almost every article - Amy Pond might now be Amy Williams for instance. Are we to wait until a character has finished appearing before we make a page for them, just in case the info changes? Because if so this wiki should be empty, since books and audios mean we can never be sure we've seen the last of a character and know for sure that their status quo won't alter. And truthfully, while accuracy is to be strived for, this is also a wiki - the ability for anyone to edit means you will always get errors and have to work to fix them. Lokiofmidgaard 18:24, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Please see here --The Thirteenth Doctor 19:22, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

This page has bad grammar, no sense of spelling and unconfirmed rumors. I say it should be deleted until the start of the next season, simple as.

Title is unlikely to change now

Seeing as BBC Character Books has not only announced publication of Gary Russell's novelisation of the story but has also released the cover art for the book - titled Death of the Doctor - I think the issue has been settled and the article can be created now. Similarly a novelisation for the Series 4 story The Nightmare Man has also been announced and the cover circulated. On a related note I note User:CzechOut's comment back on 23 June regarding the idea that no articles should be created until the episodes air. I trust Series 6 (Doctor Who) has been deleted (if that's a blue link, then obviously not) and that a ban is placed on creating articles based on any of the episodes, even after they've been officially announced. Good luck enforcing that, by the way. 68.146.81.123 15:07, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

• As stated on the formatting rules for the page, "At the very least, an article should have a basic behind-the-scenes description of the story and basic synopsis, the correct templates, an image from the story and a cast list. Please do not attempt to do a television story article if you are unable to provide these.". We don't have those things for the page, therefore it should not be created, whether we know the title or not. --The Thirteenth Doctor 15:40, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Since the BFI has now released the official synopsis for the story (see here), I think this argument is moot now and we can go ahead and create a proper article for this. Unless you think the British Film Institute isn't a reputable source, of course! 68.146.81.123 15:18, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Do we have a cast list? --The Thirteenth Doctor 11:54, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, why isn't The Doctor and Jo on the side bar like Episode David Tennant did Joshoedit 18:58, October 16, 2010 (UTC)
  • Cast list for Part 1 is on the SJA website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vmvyh

Info to add to page

I Was reading the writers tale the final chapter. Death of the doctor was a name RTD considered for the end of time part 2 Joshoedit 05:03, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

503 Regenarations

Just wondering because when Clyde asks the Doctor how many times he can regenerate the Doctor replies 503. I wonder if this was just a flippant comment or if RTD is trying to retcon the regenerations a Time Lord can have. MunroJ 16:52, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

507. And probably a retcon. Not everything in Doctor Who needs a massive episode revolving around it. Considering they casually mention the fates of a number of previous companions as well. The whole second to part to me suggested they just wanted to tie up a bunch of loose canon-ends. - I. Am. Excalibur-117-^{(talk • contribs)} 16:56, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Regeneration is not strict about count, as article states, Rassilon restricted more than twelwe regeneration. I am not sure, how/if this restriction is enforced biologically or some other way, but it seems to be possible to overcome this restriction, even legaly as Master was offered to aquire new regeneration cycle. Thus I believe The Doctor was talking about absolute number, not just common regeneration cycle --TakeruDavis 11:50, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Additional info to add in to the Continuity section...

Though I may be paraphrasing a bit here, but perhaps adding a reference of the Eleventh Doctor speaking of his previous incarnation would be a decent addition. Particularly, when Sarah Jane asks the Doctor if the tenth Doctor was alright before he regenerated, the Doctor replied that "he was always alright," in reference to something the Tenth Doctor would say when the situation was anything but alright.

Dorothy - Ace or Dodo?

Well spotted someone for pointing out that "Dorothy" may mean Dodo as well as Ace. But, notice, the initials of the charity "A Charitable Earth" spell out ACE, so it is most likely to be her. A very typical, clever RTD hint. Can someone mention that in the article? I can't, it's semi-protected. Thanks,
92.235.135.70 10:01, October 27, 2010 (UTC) Dalek194

But Dodo's name is Dorothea (the a is pronounced), not Dorothy, so why would it it refer to Dodo? Tzigone 02:21, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Dodo's, as far as we know, completely uncanon in regards to the TV series. If it's not expressely given a link to the TV series (like Justicia), then it's canonicity is dubious at best and non-existent at worst. Meganerd18 02:25, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

503 regenerations?

Isn't it 13 forms? As proposed originally?Dark3000light 13:41, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

As I theoretized higher, Time Lord might be capable of 507 regenerations, but they are somehow restricted to do so, leaving them with twelve regenerations (13 forms). Thus claiming both is truth --TakeruDavis 18:18, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke not truth. Rule 1- The Doctor lies.81.110.190.227 18:09, October 31, 2010 (UTC)Bobzilla

Stub

Can the stub be removed? Joshoedit 18:20, October 31, 2010 (UTC)