Talk:The Parting of the Ways

Speculation regarding regeneration

This episode will no doubt be changed with Eccleston's desire to leave the series.

The problem with the series as a whole is that it does not travel beyond Earth and orbiting artificial space stations.

From comments made by Russell T Davies, I understand that Christopher Eccleston had only ever agreed to do one series from the start, so Davies knew this going in, and in fact made the Doctor's departure at the end of the series one of the features of the ongoing story arc - I expect some kind of surprise or twist to be revealed in the Bad Wolf episode.

As to the second point, this again has been addressed by comments of Davies in interviews - he feels that basing everything on or around Earth makes it all harder hitting and closer to home for his audience (it's been tried before - note the UNIT years with the 3rd doctor, which was something of a reaction to the monster years of later Troughton). I don't necessarily agree with him - I don't think that just because characters and places are alien we can't empathise - look at E.T. - but what you see as a failing is a result of a conscious decision by Davies, and is something he sees as a positive point. PaulHammond 23:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Doctor isn't departing. Christopher Ecclestone is, but this being Doctor Who all that means is a regeneration into another body. Having seen a photo of the new guy I'm worried he won't be nearly as good, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. PeteVerdon

I also think it's highly effective to have it all set on earth or places "owned" by earth. Being very interested in how governments react to extraterrestrial threat, Aliens of London, World War Three, The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances were wonderful. Unfortunately I missed ep.1, but Boom Town sounds a nice contingency-type thing! I can't wait.--217.137.90.126 06:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Precisely - I've always been a big fan of UNIT because the concept just made sense. If you had a world where alien invasions happened every couple of weeks, a specialised military force to combat those threats is needed, with specialised equipment. If there were a real organisation like this I'd sign up like a shot. What they need is to introduce the concept in a bigger way, a new Brigadier-type character, and I'll be happy. --khaosworks 11:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The entry in http://www.tvtome.com/DoctorWho_2005/guide.html for ep13 lists James Melody as the Watcher. No idea if that's accurate. --Billpg 10:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the Doctor keeps helping humanity, doesn't he care about all theo ther alien races that are being attacked by various monsters in his absence? Revenant Lord

Incidentally, news reports about the confirmation of Series 2 and 3 being commissioned generally include comments that Series 2 will include Cybermen, and travel to other planets. PaulHammond 16:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

cast listing in notes

surely some of those listed are un-notable and not deserving of wiki links? GraemeLeggett 10:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably. It'll be fixed in the wash when the actually cast list section is written, or you can remove the red links now. --khaosworks 13:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

How accurate is the statement saying that its believed Davros returns? THe words "they survived through me" from the preview don't mean anything. It could be anybody, Omega, The Master or some new person. 19:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing Norman Lovett reference

http://observationdome.ofla.info/archives/2005/june/06-2148.html

It was a hoax.

Which was quite obvious. It took in enough people that I think it might be worth noting, though. --khaosworks 14:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Shame. Norman would've been great! --DudeGalea 16:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He would have been, wouldn't he? Imagine the immortal dialogue: "They're dead, Doctor. Everybody's dead. Everybody is dead, Doctor. Everybody's dead, Doctor. Yes, everybody! Everybody's dead, Doctor!" --khaosworks 17:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

"We are talking April, May, June, July and August fool. Yes, that's right, I am Davros." :-) --DudeGalea

Cast list

The BBC have a castlist here [1]

Notably, it has Mickey and Jackie again. 80.229.39.194 11:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even more notably, not Dave Tennant... --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 18:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yet he was in it. --DudeGalea 19:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly :) -Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 19:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the Radio Times showed him as being in it. And the picture of him on the front cover was a bit of a giveaway too. :-) Cracking episode, I thought. The ending had a touch of the deus ex machina about it, but at least it relied upon pre-established stuff, so it wasn't like they just pulled it out of a hat. --DudeGalea 19:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers

If anyone's going to post any spoilers, could they mention that they are doing so in the edit summary? :) Tim! (talk) 17:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read the spoiler section on OG which spills the beans on the episode after the BAFTA screening on June 15, so I know a few things - but I urge all the editors not to put any of the plot information up and police the articles so that all such spoilers are eliminated. I'll be keeping an eye on it for sure. --khaosworks 03:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

much appreciated :), I'm also trying to avoid Time Lord and Gallifrey till I finish The Gallifrey Chronicles. Tim! (talk) 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Kisses

Were quite tasteful (whatever the character's interactions were supposed to be).

Planet Barcelona

What was so special about it - couldn't quite catch the words.

The dogs there have no noses. So all together now, "How do they smell?" "Awful!"--khaosworks 21:23, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Oblique reference - Ecclestone says "Imagine, they tell that joke all day long, and it's STILL funny." personally, I don't reckon it was that funny even the first time I heard it, but I suppose the Doctor thinks it's "Fantastic!!" PaulHammond 16:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Major spoiler section

Should we remove the major spoiler section as at mostly was only relevant before the episode was broadcast --Jawr256 12:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Dalek

The current version has it that it is a giant mutant... I think the creature itself is supposed to be normal size, isn't it? It's just surrounded itself with giant accoutrements. User:DavidFarmbrough 8:44 20 Jun 2005 (BST)

It looked bigger to me, but I could be wrong. It definitely seems to have a larger lobed cerebrum-like thing at the back of its head, and taken in proportion with how large the rest of it is, I got the impression it was a giant version as well. Like I said, I could be wrong. --khaosworks

I don't think the creature was larger than normal. I got the impression his large casing and head was intended to be a sign of insecurity bordering on paranoia. It was difficult to tell the size, with it being on a screen for much of the episode.User:DavidFarmbrough 12:32 20 Jun 2005 (BST)

It seemed to be in proportion with the domed head over the top, though it seemed more like a small thing dangling off the head piece compared to the dalek we saw in Dalek. Since the emperor appeared to be at least 4 or 5 times the size of an ordinary dalek, I think the creature was bigger too. PaulHammond 16:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was 1.5 - 2 times the size of a normal one. Thelb4 13:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Timing of Eccleston's departure

I was told that the regeneration was only written into this episode after Chris Eccleston decided to leave: that they were still filming when that announcement was made. I think this sounds unlikely, and makes the timescale very tight, but can anyone point to anything which states for the record one way or the other? --Phil | Talk 08:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Production on Bad Wolf and The Parting of the Ways began in mid-January 2005 and concluded near the end of the month (IIRC). Davies apparently knew in January, so that jibes with the timing as we know it. I think your information is only wrong in that they were still filming when Eccleston's intentions to leave were made known to the production team, not when the press announcement was made in March. Davies stated in an interview on icWales that the scripts "had been written" to accomodate the departure, so it was all planned, apparently. The mystery is when the regeneration scene was filmed, and whether or not Tennant and Eccleston were both in attendance (they don't have to be, of course, given CGI tech these days). --khaosworks 08:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Series 2

As it appears that the next series will definitely be created, when will the Wikipage be created (though at this stage will be little more than a marker page).

Will Captain Jack return? Could do with a bit more background on him - as he refers to himself and the Doctor as "time agents" he obviously has a different point of origin to Gallifrey.

Enough gaps in the series to keep the fanfic writers happy (g).

We don't have pages for individual seasons/series, just the stories. Right now, series 2 is represented as a section on List of Doctor Who serials. John Barrowman has been confirmed for series 2 (although he does not appear in the first block of episodes, which according to all accounts is just the Christmas special and episode 1). --khaosworks

Want to see much more about the Time Wars, Gallifrey, and TARDIS.

Daleks "kneeling"

There is a content conflict here - Energy wants to say that the Daleks treat hovering around the Emperor Dalek as kneeling. My view is that there is no evidence to say that is what they are doing. I would welcome opinions from other editors as to what they think about this. --khaosworks 17:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Khaosworks and User talk:Energy for more info on the debate. Contact me for further details.-->Energy (talk) 17:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Daleks around the emperor were hovering because the CGI team thought that looked cool, and also because it helped make the model look bigger. I think that those four daleks were the Emperor's personal attendants. But neither that, nor "they are hovering as a mark of worship, like kneeling" was established in the episode.

The episode establishes that the Emperor has created a dalek religion. The idea that "hovering = kneeling" is just an interesting idea of Energy's, and as such should not appear in the episode summary as if it were a fact. PaulHammond 10:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

81.144.244.11

Without having an account it is difficult for us to communicate with him/her. It would seem that edits to their contributions has provoked a reaction. With any luck they might read this and understand why the edits were dealt with like that. Lifting copyrighted text is not the wiki-way! GraemeLeggett 16:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Back history

It would have been interesting/useful to have more than hints on the Time Wars.

"Reduced to atoms"

Aren't the daleks written out of time? Isn't that it?--84.51.149.80 08:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Rose says, "I can see the whole of time and space; every single atom of your existence... and I divide them." While you could, at a stretch, interpret that to mean that she wipes them out of time, the immediate reading of that sentence to me, as a viewer, coupled with the visual of the Dalek and later on the Dalek ship dissolving, simply means that she is parting their atoms. Besides, writing them out of time entire would open that entire can of worms of changing history, blah blah blah Reapers blah, and I don't believe that was Davies' intent. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and after Jack comes back to life, he sweeps through a pile of dust in front of him, too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I wondered if that meant they had merely been teleported somewhere... :) Tim! (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Kisses

I clarified the "kissing" note, as the original could be taken as saying that Piper preferred kissing Eccleston. She doesn't really say that. She does say that she preferred Rose's kiss with the Doctor because it was more "lingering". But I figure that the kiss was done that way because a lingering kiss was needed for that part of the story. IOW, maybe Piper does prefer kissing Eccleston, but there's nothing in the interview to suggest that. "Captain Jack's was quite brief," she considers. "Rose and the Doctor's was more lingering. Both quite wet, actually. But I like that. I like it when it's very real, tongues and all - " - DudeGalea 14:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who returns in The Christmas Invasion

... is what we see at the end of The Parting of the Ways. Should therefore the infobox's "followed by" field point to The Christmas Invasion, and not the Children in Need "mini-episode"? Tim! (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Vortex energy is lethal to whom?

Is it just me, or is there a problem with Rose absorbing the vortex and living while the Doctor absorbs it out of her and dies? Did he also absorb the damage done to her, thereby 'regenerating' her cells at the expense of his own? Is this another regeneration as between Doctors 6 & 7, where the on-screen explanation for the Doctor's death requires a little fan-tweaking to make sense, or did I miss something? -- Proteus71 21:09, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That's a commonly asked question, actually, so it's not just you. :) The most reasonable fanon explanation I've seen, or rather the explanation that seems to satisfy most people is that since the vortex energy gave Rose the power of life and death, it also did the same to the Doctor, who healed her while it was inside him (like she did Jack) and then released it... but of course there was no one to heal him. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That does explain it really well. Too bad Davies missed it — it's one of the few occasions when he's missed something obvious. -- Proteus71 23:58, 26 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Paradoxes section

The recently expanded "Paradoxes" section is quite well written and could be construed as a helpful commentary on a potentially confusing aspect of the story. However, I'm concerned that it might be considered original research. The section collects various passing comments about the nature of time and time travel from Doctor Who's 42-year+ history and suggests how they might indicate a mathematically consistent view of time and space; although the arguments appear well-grounded, it may not be appropriate to put them here unless they've also been made by a notable Doctor Who commentator like Lawrence Miles or Paul Cornell. Does anyone know of any reliable secondary sources which could be used to back this section up? If we can't find any, I fear the section may have to be deleted, despite its quality. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good contribution, but I'm not sure it's inclusion in the article is really justified. A link to an article on the predestination paradox where detailed explanation of the theory is - minus Doctor Who suppositions, and including refs - might be better. --Whouk (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, it reads more like an essay. As the original note already linked it to predestination paradox, I've deleted the section. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a defense of the section written, but it's already gone. There should have been more time for debate. My two cents on this matter is written up on my user page, should anyone be intersted. --proteus71 22:58, 31 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Just because one user has removed the section doesn't mean the discussion is necessarily over. You make some sensible points in the response on your user page, and I think there might be some merit in bringing them here for wider debate. As for WP:NOR and a pop-culture subject like Doctor Who, my interpretation has always been similar to the way the NOR policy is viewed in liberal arts pages. On a subject like the historicity of the Iliad or the sexual politics of The Taming of the Shrew, a Wikipedia entry is supposed to summarize relevant views, opinions and interpretations from reliable published sources, not serve as a forum for editors to present their own views (no matter how sensible or trivial). For example, if a literary critic has written an essay or book on the uses of magic in Shakespeare's plays, then it would be appropriate to summarize the critic's arguments at A Midsummer Night's Dream or The Tempest. But I think it's considered original research for an editor to place his or her own theories, no matter how well-founded and no matter how trivial, on such pages.

I was concerned that Proteus71's additions might be an original theory in this sense: to my knowledge, no secondary source has been published discussing the Bad Wolf scenario from a mathematical perspective, as Proteus71 did here. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, what Proteus71 has written about TPOTW could equally apply to any predestination paradox. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure it does (is this the view of a predestination paradox forwarded by mathematicians as opposed to a single person/editor drawing a mathematical analogy?), it should go into that article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The section isn't necessarily gone for good, Proteus71. If their is consensus to restore it (which I think is unlikely), the text is still there in the edit history. Just because it's not in the article now doesn't mean the debate has to be over. --Whouk (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Josiah Rowe and DavidFarmbrough had some helpful things to say on my user page, so thank you. Let me clarify something: the fact the section was cut is not the reason I am considering leaving Wikipedia alone for a while. It's that the deletion happened even as I was writing a defense. Whouk is correct that in a practical sense the issue isn't dead. However, when someone with authority deletes something substantial, it has at least a symbolic meaning — that is, you may still have an appeal, but you already know what the outcome will be. (I'm not trying to blame anything on khaosworks — he's a good editor, which means competant and fair. Disagreements happen.) On to some specific points raised above:

1. If Paul Cornell had said the same thing, it could be included? That's a logical fallacy. Unless that the point is not that he wrote it but that he had it published somewhere first.
2. If it reads like an essay, doesn't that mean it needs to be rewritten? Are we deleting essay-like sections rather than letting the Wiki-process do its work? I would hope that this issue was irrelevent to why the section was deleted.
3. There are no secondary mathematical sources dealing with the Bad Wolf scenario, b/c all of this is well below that professional radar of any mathematician worth his/her salt. What I used was third-four year undergraduate reasoning. In fact, show what I wrote to a mathematics PhD, and they will probably reply: "Isn't this obvious? The writer didn't claim this was original did he?" IOW, what I wrote is so obvious in my field that I can't use it for original research. Even if I constructed a parameterize curve in 3-space that modelled Bad Wolf temporally, it still wouldn't be considered as anything but less than trivia. However, in this court, it's new/unusual, so it's default original research. This is troublesome.
4. In the DW sense, where does something have to be published for it to be considered officially published? I can guarantee no math journal will look at what I came up with.

proteus71, 16:22, 1 Feb 2006

I don't think anyone expects it to be published in a math journal — I recognize that mathematically what you describe is trivial and obvious. However, the question is whether it's original research as applied to Doctor Who. And that's where the appeal to authority comes in: you're on the right track when you say that the point is whether it's been published elsewhere. In a Doctor Who context, that probably means either a column in Doctor Who Magazine or (maybe) a well-regarded fanzine like Enlightenment, or a book like this one. Failing that, a comment by a notable Doctor Who authority in a fan interview or forum on the web would do, not because the argument is any better logically because it comes from Paul Cornell, but because that makes it not original research. We can't originate our own explanations for things here, we can only report and summarize explanations given by others.

The question is whether your account of the "Bad Wolf" paradox amounts to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation" (see WP:NOR). I'm not actually sure whether it does or not, since what you describe is, as you say, mathematically obvious, but might be considered new in this context. We'd need to find a consensus here on the talk page as to whether it's sufficiently obvious and non-controversial to get around the restrictions of the NOR policy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote the above while Khaosworks was posting his comment below.)

This should not, and I am certainly hoping it does not, put you off contributing to Wikipedia. Although the conclusions may be obvious, that does not mean they are not original. The reason I did not rewrite it was not that I did not try. In the end, I did not find anything really salvageable that did not appear to be original research.

It's a matter of creating a primary source rather than drawing on primary sources. It's not about authority - if Cornell was a Wikipedia editor and added it, it'd still be original research. If he spoke about it on a DVD commentary, or wrote an article in DWM, now that would be different. Or if the idea was widespread among fandom (which goes to notability).

Consider that originality in this sense comes from the application of the mathematical concept to predestination paradoxes. While I am not writing this off entirely, I still feel that it is too general to have a place in Bad Wolf and could be better applied to the predestination paradox article, although I would still say that it would better pass the "no original research" test if someone had actually written about it somewhere notable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try a shorter formulation that is more specific to the episode.

proteus71, 20:44, 1 Feb 2006

Predestination paradox as Bad Wolf / This link should be removed, though as interesting it is, but as relevant to this episode "the parting of the ways" i think not. The character(in a paranormal state) simply puts little reminders through time about her future,- as a reminder to go back and help, not as a linear causal agent of anykind. If this is a paradox then all Doctor Who episodes are a paradox as why does the doctor not just go to his adventures prior to his "medling",- they usually state "first law of time" or "nature of the universe" as to him not doing this. The mentions of 'bad wolf' through time and space were just little ripples of memory to aid in the future climax, i do not think they were paradoxical at all. Boy were they(bad wolf mentions) sinister through out the series though. Book M 11:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)User:Book M

Angry with the ending

Hi guys, Im in the USA, and am just reading this now. Im quite disappointed, as Im just getting to like this show, and Christopher is doing an awesome job as the current doctor. It is a real shame that he decided to leave the show. Anyone else with me on this? TheOneCalledA1 00:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We were all disappointed, I think, but we move on. I have no complaints myself with David Tennant as the new Doctor, who's a marvellous choice. Still, all in all, we got a lot of stories out of Chris, and it was a fantastic year. (Still, this isn't the place to talk about it, as it's Wikipedia, not a fan forum... you can find lots of people to talk about this at Outpost Gallifrey). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame, but from here it's old news. (The fact Ecclestone was leaving broke the week after the first episode of Rose was aired in the UK). It's one of those things - if an actor cannot be persuaded that staying on in a series is a good thing to do, there is little the production team can do about it except write his departure into the storyline. As you'll find if you follow the net sources, there was all kinds of speculation about the reasons for Ecclestone's decsion from the time the news broke onwards. PaulHammond 00:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it that Rose, a human, survives unscathed, despite controlling the Time Vortex for a much longer time. 203.129.62.11 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox date

Someone changed the date from June 18 to June 19 in the infobox and did so incorrectly, so the infobox wasn't showing. I corrected the link but I've got no idea which date is the correct one (it says June 18 in the text), someone should check it. Jashiin 20:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Followed by...?

Tim! (talk · contribs) said that he mentioned it on the talk page, but I must be a little dense tonight because I don't see it on either this talk page or Talk:The Christmas Invasion. I see it now. Duh. Back in January and no answer from anyone. But anyway, I know that POTW says that "Doctor Who will return in The Christmas Invasion", but it's also pretty clear the CiN special takes place between POTW and TCI. I don't think that, where we know for sure where this episode goes (mini as it may be and un-numbered as it is), especially since its canonicity is not generally disputed, it shouldn't be excluded from the "preceded by" and "followed by" count. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I see Tim's point about going with what's on screen, my fanboy side agrees with Terence. Put it this way: The Christmas Invasion is the next episode, but "Regeneration Cutaway" is the next scene, and since the "followed by" field doesn't specify episode/story, I think we can get away with it.

Of course, if we're lucky (and the lawyers can work it out), the CiN scene will be on the Series 2 DVD set, which would help settle questions like this.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a compromise, listing them both. It's a bit clunky, but it acknowledges both the "on-screen" and the "next in the Doctor's life on television" sides of things. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It reminds me of the time when one of the Bond films (Diamonds are Forever?) ended with "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only" - only for him to return in Moonraker. It didn't mean you wouldn't make Moonraker the next film in any list of Bond films. —Whouk (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

...and I think the compromise works. —Whouk (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone notice...

Does anyone else think that the Dalek that Jack destroys seems to have two eyes instead of one? I'm not sure if it's just a pecularity of the model, or a deliberate reference to these Daleks' human origins. The Emperor has one eye, but he also seems to have another eye-like fold on the side of his "face". David 13:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Wolf

A passing thought - is there a connection, perhaps to Fenris Wolf and Ragnorak? 62.6.121.44 21:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Damn Gun

Can anyone here confirm that the gun the Doctor intended to use on the Dalek in the earlier episode is the same gun Captain Jack used in Parting of the Ways inside the TARDIS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicaladz (talk • contribs)

They're not the same guns. Jack made his out of blown up robot bits in Bad Wolf. DonQuixote 01:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I finally watched Dalek yesterday and realised they weren't the same, but still didn't know where the gun was from. Next up, Bad Wolf.

Radical AdZ 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

The second paragraph of the Plot section states that: "...the bastic bullets [were] ineffective," Is this a typo or not? I hesitate to change it to ballistic because I am not a Doctor Who expert. Any thoughts? --Hydraton31 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The word bastic is correct. This is the word used and can be confirmed by turning on the subtitles when watching the appropriate portion of the episode. Thanks for asking before doing any editing. MarnetteD | Talk 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack's immortality revealed...

Since Torchwood Series 1 aired before Jack appeared in "Utopia", wasn't his immortality revealed before "Utopia" aired, in the Torchwood episode, "Everything Changes"? Starrynight06 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The first series reveals Jack's immortality more than once. However, in those 13 episodes no reference is made to the fact that is was Rose's actions that caused this. Naturally, it can be infered. I took a look at the item in question and tried to come up with a variation on the wording to allow for this but I couldn't come up with anything that I liked. If you have a suggestion please feel free to add it. MarnetteD | Talk 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I like your new wording. Do you think there should be a reference to Torchwood at all? Starrynight06 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention in 'Age of Steel'

At the end of the episode 'Age of Steel', Mickey Smith references this episode at the end of the episode. The line was something along the lines of 'Yeah, and one time I saved the universe with a big yellow truck'. This would be referring to when Jackie Tyler used a favor to commandeered a rescue tow vehicle, which was then used to pull open the console of the TARDIS, so Rose could travel back to the year 200,100 to save the Doctor. I don't have any references to use to verify this at the moment, other then the fact that I just watched 'Age of Steel', but I will look for some to use. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention, so it can be added to the continuity section. Thanks 2602:304:CDC0:C1E0:691D:598C:444A:E7BF (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a site which is dedicated to scripts for Sci Fi shows, including Doctor Who. The link that I provided is a link to the episode 'Age of Steel'. The site is legit, and is very accurate. You could read along as you watch the episode, and it also describes what is happening throughout the episode, as well as character lines. Hope this helps. 2602:304:CDC0:C1E0:691D:598C:444A:E7BF (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

the nineth drs aperans was in day of the doctor

his last aperans is in day of the doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:1098:B300:91FE:84FD:410A:957 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)