Talk:Chronology of the Doctor Who universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Former FLC Chronology of the Doctor Who universe is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Date for The Daleks

Why is the date for The Daleks down as a million years after Dalek Invasion of Earth? The Doctor was obviously guessing at the date - not giving an exact value. 86.131.241.72 (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of terms like 'obviously' as it's been my experience that one person's 'obviously' is another person's 'you must be joking'! :) What we do know is that the Doctor said the events of The Daleks happened "one million years ahead of us in the future" from Dalek Invasion. It's the general convention in these kind of exercises to take a character's word for it - and precisely at that - unless there's contradictory information. This therefore implies a date of circa 1,002,164 for the earlier story. Is there any specific problem with the date and what alternative date would you suggest? And why would it be an improvement?
Any uncertainties, ambiguities and contradictions with other information is probably best dealt with by way of the footnotes and references. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New format?

What do people think of the following format? (2004-2006 given here as an example)

  • Early March 2005[2]; The Ninth Doctor arrives in London and meets Rose Tyler. After they defeat the Nestene Consciousness and the Autons, she becomes his companion. (Rose) Elton Pope is also present at the events. (Love & Monsters)
  • 6 September 2006[3]; The Ninth Doctor and Rose arrive in Cardiff to refuel, and prevent a Slitheen from using a nuclear power station to destroy the city. (Boom Town)
  • Autumn 2006[4] ; Rose is sent back to 21st century London by the Ninth Doctor for a brief period during the events on Satellite 5 in the year 200,100. (The Parting of the Ways)
  • 24-25 December 2006[5] ; The newly-regenerated Tenth Doctor and Rose arrive back on Earth for Christmas; A Sycorax invasion ship appears over London and the doctor defeats its leader in a duel. The ship is later destroyed by Harriet Jones using a Torchwood weapon, which leads to the Doctor to sow the seeds of her demise. (The Christmas Invasion) Elton Pope is also present at the events. (Love & Monsters)


There are several advantages to this scheme, as far as I can see;

  • No information is lost, as the individual episodes are still linked to, and the date and Doctor number are still given. The only thing missing is the airdate and that can be added in if so desired.
  • It reads more like the other timelines of fictional worlds on Wikipedia, such as the timeline of arda.
  • The original focus of the page was a list of episodes in date order. (I should know, I wrote it.) Now that scenes and flashbacks and teasers from the episodes are being given their own entry, it seems the article is migrating towards a full depiction of events.
  • Multiple related episodes that happen at the same time can be combined into a single entry; for example, Elton's flashbacks to the Christmas Invasion, Aliens of London as seen above.
  • There is scope for dates such as people's births to be included. However, we should probably stick to events depicted in the series, and definitely not the books.
  • The brief (keep them brief!) plot summaries, including such large-scale events as Harriet Jones' appointment and resignation, help to give an overview of the greater scheme of events in the Whoniverse.
  • References are kept and there's no problem with events without specific times

If people are desperate to keep the current format this could become something different like Timeline of the Doctor Who universe or something but the two might be deemed too similar.

I hope the proposal meets with approval. Discussion welcome. Mark J (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me just put it in and see how it looks. Mark J (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits, not because I disagree (In fact, I think it's a great idea), but because I think you should wait for more consensious, and also, not use one format for one part of the article and another format for the rest. Please use a Sandbox for anymore editing tests. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine; I figured that maybe if I put it in, others would work on converting the rest of the article, bit by bit. Unfortunately, I may not be prepared to convert the whole article single-handedly, and therefore a group effort is needed, and if so, the article would need to be worked on. I accept we need consensus first, though. Mark J (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea- I've created a page to get it worked on here --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 21:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm sympathetic to the idea of the kind of article you're proposing, I do think that it would be a different article to the present one, which is - as the first line states - 'a list of Doctor Who episodes in the chronological order they occur in'. The article answers the simple question: When is a particular episode set? What you're proposing is a chronological listing of events, including events referred to but not shown, such as birthdays. I don't think it's appropriate to radically change the focus of an existing article. Rather you should start a new article - your proposed 'Timeline' one. The two articles would be similar, but whether they're too similar is arguable. Personally, I think they'd serve different purposes. I disagree that seperate entries for flashbacks etc mean that "the article is migrating towards a full depiction of events". 'When is an episode set?' has multiple answers when parts of the episode are set at different times - whether by actual time travel in the Tardis, flashbacks or skipping ahead 'one year later', etc. And in entries such as '"Fragments" (Tosh's induction flashback)', the part in brackets is simply a description to distinguish that flashback from the others. One disadvantage I can see with your proposal is that it's going to make the article a lot longer as you're proposing to add in (quite a bit of) additional material derived from events referred to but not shown. (Though you could shorten your suggestion. Why describe what happens in Boom Town? There's an episode article that does that (in much greater detail), and it has no general 'historical' significance. Just put the episode name.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I think we should dispense with birthdays and stuff, probably, as they will make the article too long. But if the new format goes ahead then no information will be lost - the article will still serve its original purpose, with the episode names in brackets. Having two separate articles would just mean that the original becomes a sort of sub-article of the new one. But I won't be too bothered if that's what happens. Mark J (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think that people often ask 'when is an episode set?', but don't often ask 'what happened in the Doctor Who universe at a particular date?' - but that said, there is merit in a timeline as it brings out the date of events that are referred to, but not shown, in a story or episode. For instance, when Blon fel Fotch became Mayor of Cardiff is not shown in any episode, but is mentioned. But it then blurs 'when the episode was set' - if you see this date, and the reference to Boom Town, the date is not when the episode is set. That's why I think two articles can be justified - if you take care to spell out the difference. After all, in a French-English dictionary you also get an English-French one, although technically, all the information in the second half is in the first! :) (I agree that birthdays can normally be left out, as they can be put in the relevant character articles.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Unicorn and the Wasp

Was this date of this episode stated in dialouge? LizzieHarrison 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The year was given in dialogue, but it can be dated precisely because it is set at an actual historical event (Agatha Christie's disappearance) - I took the dates from the Wikipedia article on the author. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporating UNIT stories in main table

I have incorporated all the 1968-1989 UNIT stories into the main table. The article as first drafted had them as a separate table because of the dating controversy. But since then, the new series and its spin-offs have provided more dating information - in particular it has narrowed down the date of Invasion of the Dinosaurs to somewhere in 1973-75. This rules out most of the storylines being in the 1980s, and the rest can be dated consistently with IotD on the basis that their general appearance is consistent with the year of airing. I have therefore done so - but have clearly marked the stories and made clear the assumptions and that there is some dispute over the date, giving a link to the article on the controversy. I think it's better to have them in the table with an actual date, even if uncertain and possibly disputed, than to have no attempt at dating them. If there are any inconsistencies in the dates, that can be noted in the references. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BCE

User:Mlf107 unilaterally changed the dates in this article, which have been rendered as BC from the outset, to BCE. However the manual of style clearly states:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.

I have changed the dates back to the system originally used by this article. It is used with good reason: An Unearthly Child is often referred to as 100,000 BC, but never as 100,000 BCE. Please do not revert this without discussion. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I have reverted before reading this, thinking BCE was the original... however, please do not misinterpret WP:MOS; you are just as "guilty" by reverting it back. Now, is there a point either way to support either method? BCE is understood to be the more 'neutral' notation. — Edokter • Talk • 11:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In which case you are doubly guilty for changing it back again. In such cases, as with such things as British English rather than American English, the version originally used in a given article takes priority. (Furthermore, as I said above, BC is the system that is used within Doctor Who itself, making it preferable in this instance.) I merely reinstated the correct copy before User:Mlf107 took it upon himself to change the dating system without discussion. I do not wish to have a pointless edit war over this petty matter, so I would appreciate it is you would reinstate the original version yourself. Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary dates TOO COMPLICATED

Look at when this list was a featured article candidate. Look at the dates for the episodes then, nice and simple. I mean "spanning 2 days between late June and September 2009, one year after "The Sound of Drums"??? Why not just have "2009"? Is there any reason to have miniessays under "Dating" as opposed to a month and a date (and possible addendum if necessary to avoid confusion)? Seriphyn (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated? Too complicated? Are you saying people would have trouble comprehending it? Are you saying the same information can be presented in a simpler manner? Or are you saying you'd prefer it to be less complicated as a matter of personal taste? You did say 'simple' was 'nice'! :)
I like simple. Simple is nice. If you can give a nice, simple way of stating the information in the entry you quote, I'd be all in favour - as long as it's accurate and preserves the information, that is! If you're going to go to the trouble of having an article listing when the stories and episodes were set, you may as well state 'when' as precisely as possible. Why just put '2009', when you can say it was set over two days in late June to September 2009? Isn't the latter more information rich? And the current entry does show its relationship to other entries clearly, which a bare '2009' would not. '2009?' Is that before Fragments or after Fragments? You could set all those relative dates out in footnotes - but is that really simpler overall? People do care about relative positioning - which was set first? - as reading the archived discussion would demonstrate (let alone the shows' forums).
And you never know, an as yet unaired episode may give the date of Sound of Drums precisely, and then the entry you dislike would automatically be simplified. :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A differing view on Sound of Drums date

As user Mael-Num first pointed out here, the fact that the Winters character refers to himself as "President-elect" places the time of that statement between early November of an election year, and January 20 of the following year, as defined by the title. If other sources indicate that the year is 2008, and that events take place prior to Christmas (in Voyage of the Damned) then it's certainly between November 4, 2008 and December 24, 2008. This conflicts with the late June to September 2008 assertion, and I'm not sure how to reconcile this with surrounding episode timelines. Thoughts? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Winters does refer to himself as President-elect, but he is referred to by others (including the newsreaders, who you think would get it right) as President. Also, the Master disparagingly refers to him to Lucy as 'the last President of the United States', which wouldn't be true if he was only President-elect. Most people attribute this internal contradiction to a scripting error caused by RTD misunderstanding what President-elect means (not uncommon amongst even educated UK people). But if he was President-elect, then you're right about the date. It could arguably be fitted in in November 2008, although To the Last Man must be within '12 months or so' of 17 September 2007 (assuming Everything Changes is set as late as possible, though that squeezes the time available for Random Shoes before Out of Time) - but then you have to squeeze in the other episodes between these and between the latter and Adrift, which itself starts before 27 January 2009. And the Ianto flashback in Fragments must occur before 17 September 2007, and is 'one year earlier' than the events in Fragments. Winters has to be one or the other, but having him be President leaves more room for the other episodes, doesn't contradict Fragments, and I think is the preferable interpretation (though this should be stated in the footnotes). Alternatively, you could put both possibilities in the table, though this would make the table very complicated, and there are already complaints about its 'complexity' as it is! :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Whether it was an error or not, it's still part of the program, and thus it must be taken at face value. As for the inconsistencies where other characters refer to him as the "President," it's only reasonable that the character must be right about his OWN title, and the others are mistaken. Someone who was recently elected president certainly wouldn't get his own title wrong. I don't think we can choose to "have him be President" when he states otherwise. --—Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about a time traveler here, it doesn't matter if one time contradicts with another. Jammy (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"Whether it was an error or not, it's still part of the program, and thus it must be taken at face value." But then you are the specific mentioning of dates which should equally be taken at face value. You seem to think that "President elect" should override all other dates mentioned in the series. This is why referencing is needed, not simply choosing to believe which timeline you think makes more sense.
It's MAJOR assumption to believe that all of the British characters are some how ignorant or stupid and got it wrong. The359 (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I NEVER said anything remotely like that. I'm not assuming that at all. What I'm suggesting is that this is information that may help more closely place the timeline of the episode, and that the information had not been considered previously. And Cuddlyopedia has outlined a possible scenario in which this could all fit together. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You have, this entire time. You've simply been picking and choosing to believe "President elect" over "President", when both are equally implied. It's not your choice to make. Unless you have a reference from the writers or producers about what THEY intended, then your choice is not good enough for Wikipedia. The359 (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm the fella who raised the question as to the date, based on Winters' statement during the alien press conference. You raise some good points all around. Yes, other characters do refer to Winters as President. However, as far as "in-universe" authorities go on the subject, he's also the only American politician to speak of his title (the rest are Brits or The Master, who's obviously not from around here) and obviously he would be the most knowledgable on the subject. He's also talking about his own job title, so odds are he didn't bungle it, the others did. Maybe they were just hyping up his title, after all, The Master's comment wouldn't have sounded so ominous if he said, "There goes the last man who was almost President of the United States! Muahahaha!" Lame. I also agree with Jammy. The Ninth Doctor said that time is in flux, and that it could be rewritten, when explaining how things work to Rose in the 2005ish season. If one time slightly contradicts another, that's okay, because the writers have already stated (through The Doctor) that "continuity" gets rewritten. Regardless, there's only one time that a President-elect exists, and they did go out of their way on at least one occasion to define the man as "President-elect". It has to be between November's elections and January's inauguration, otherwise he'd have been "President" or nothing at all (maybe VP...Shubo had an interesting theory, ask him about it ;) ). Mael-Num (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)