Talk:The Impossible Astronaut/Archive 1

You what?

Does this sentance make sense? "TARDIS blue envelopes, containing a position, date and time enable The Doctor, River Song, Amy and Rory to meet in Utah in the 1960s." because it doesn't make sense to me, the difficult bit being "TARDIS blue envelopes" perhaps this is a new concept introduced in this show, but right now... it means what? Jasonfward (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

it means the envelope are the colour of TARDIS blue --91.108.57.67 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't work out what it was meant to mean either. If it means the colour of the TARDIS, shouldn't it be hyphenated - "TARDIS-blue envelopes"? I wondered if they were somehow themselves TARDISes. –anemoneprojectors– 00:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as these "TARDIS blue envelopes" enable "The Doctor, River Song, Amy and Rory to meet"... enable? Seems even more like a TARDIS and even less like an envelope. Jasonfward (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the correct notation would be to have TARDIS Blue in quotation marks, as in "TARDIS Blue". Please note the capitalisation of 'blue' due to "TARDIS Blue" being a definite article. Masterflea (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, colours aren't definite articles... It should say, "TARDIS-blue" envelopes were used to summon... or whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 22:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Replace the words "TARDIS blue" with "sun yellow" - as in "sun yellow envelopes, containing a position, date and time ..." and you'll see why "TARDIS blue envelopes, containing a position, date and time" makes perfect sense. I don't know how other people describe colours, but most british women that I know qualify colours based on things they're familiar with. TARDIS blue is how Amy describes it because it's such a clear colour. Heck I'd be surprised if anyone in the UK didn't understand what the phrase "TARDIS blue envelope" meant, considering how engrained in culture the TARDIS is. The ambiguity perhaps comes from the word "enable", since it's the information contained that enables them not the envelopes themselves. Anyhow, this does mean the current punctuation of "TARDIS blue" just looks plain wrong. (Speaking as someone with a TARDIS blue wardrobe in my kid's bedroom, and a variety of other TARDIS blue items dotted around the house). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.88.101 (talk • contribs)

I agree it should be hyphenated. First time I read "TARDIS blue envelopes", I thought it meant the envelopes were TARDISes. –anemoneprojectors– 12:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Production source

Good source for the article's production section here on Broadcastnow. Anyone can weasel in behind the paywall using Google. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "The Silents" not "The Silence

Said so in the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.16 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it just said that one of them is "The Silent". DonQuixote (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I was saying the same, but unfortunately the doctor who website directly contradicts that. So for now at least it has to be one Silent, two Silence. Which is rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Differences for US airing?

Ok, how much did they cut out for the commercials? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

They didn't cut anything. DonQuixote (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked, but pleased. Guess we don't need to list the diffs, then. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression they didn't cut anything, as it is 45 minutes in length, and BBC shows are often 59 minutes long because there are no ad-breaks. -- Matthew RD 02:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

BBC America is very clear that the first airing is always intact. They'll trim if needed later, but with a 45 min. runtime, they shouldn't have to trim. Drmargi (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Brave heart

Hi all, fairly new at this, so I just want confirmation: A note about the line of "Brave heart, Canton" being a reference to the 5th Doctor's recurrent line of "Brave heart, Tegan" would belong in Continuity, yes? Masterflea (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. And it's even citable from the ridiculously retitled "fourth dimension" section here. Go right ahead. U-Mos (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help! Masterflea (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 213.81.114.164, 25 April 2011

Under the 'Continuity' heading, envelopes is spelt incorrectly as 'envelops'. Please correct this error.

213.81.114.164 (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Only good reviews selected?

The Mirror's reviewer didn't like it http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/columnists/kevin-osullivan/2011/04/24/who-needs-a-plot-dr-who-that-s-who-115875-23081954/ . Shouldn't a balanced article include negative opinion in appropraite porportion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should indeed; go for it and add it in :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lowest ratings since new series?

The "lowest ratings since new series began" line is both unfair and incorrect. The episode's total ratings haven't been added up yet, according to Moffat. The real number won't be known until next Saturday. Could someone change the text to reflect that?

Muskus1223 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

New (small) Edit Requests

"The picnickers are soon joined by an older man named Canton Everett Delaware III, who had also received an envelope. Suddenly, a figure in a space suit emerges from the lake, and the Doctor warns the others to stay back and not interfere while he goes forward to talk." -- This should be slightly changed to reflect that Canton Everett Delaware III turns up in his car and greets the Doctor from a distance, but does not join the group (or get introduced with his name and show them his envelope) until after the austronaut has appeared and the Doctor is dead.

Delaware III? There's that version of the theme music from the 1970s, which is used on surviving copies of a few 3rd Doctor episodes… coincidence? Dsalt (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Doctor appears to recognize the person in the suit -when it- *who then* raises its visor." 188.22.136.180 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"My Life in Your Hands"

I've added the Fish fingers and custard reference to the Continuity section. Immediately after Amy mentions it, the doctor replies "My life in your hands, Amelia Pond". which I'm almost sure he has said before, possibly in the Series 5 finale. If anyone does know, please could they add it to this section. Thanks! ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Continuity - Rorys finger jab

When the group find the younger version of the Doctor, Rory pushes him with his finger and asks "How can you be here?", just like the Doctor does to Rory in "The Pandorica Opens" episode. Probably needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.35.253.186 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not... ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 14:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Although you can say that this looks like original research (for your Probably not), the material in question are two actual episodes of Dr Who. The actual episodes themselves are what are being referenced and can be viewed. So I would consider these to be verified sources and not original research. In the same token, under continuity the issue of "Fish Custard" as a continutiy section would fall under the exact same reasoning you have given. If this is not included, why is that? 212.35.253.186 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Two episodes in-and-of-themselves aren't original research, but linking them is original research (or as some like to say, synthesis). And fish custard is original research too. The difference between the two is that one's more obvious than the other...and given the two, someone from outside the project will probably object, and excise, the Rory finger jab one whilst letting the fish custard slide...or they might excise that one as well, but it's less likely. Don't take it personally, I had something of mine expunged even though I thought it was patently obvious...but in hindsight, it wasn't. DonQuixote (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Fish custard" can only possibly be a reference to one thing. Jabbing someone you think has just died in the chest and saying, "Oh you're not dead," is quite a normal thing to do as far as it goes. We could equally say, The word 'the' was also used by Rory in such-and-such an episode, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I tend to draw it between the two examples you've mentioned, sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 16:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

production

i suggest a cleanup of this section. apparently someone wrote about every detail they saw in the confidential episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.98.141 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

With respect, not every detail. I particularly remember the beginning where Gillan and Darvill recall their flight details, which have not been included in the article -- Matthew RD 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Go for it then. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Waterproofed?

An issue with the line "It was waterproofed as the killer came out of the water, and in real life space suits were not designed to be used in water". The sentence structure is a bit iffy, but that's not the problem; The crew member said the suit had to be adapted, not that it had to be waterproofed. I'm pretty sure a spacesuit would inherantly be waterproof anyway. If it's not watertight, how could it be airtight? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had the same thought: spacesuits are, by definition, waterproof. The only possible way that watertightness might be an issue is if the water could somehow soak into items on the outer layer (e.g. patches), causing them to deteriorate like wet paper, but even that seems far-fetched. Besides, astronauts train for zero-G operations by working in a massive water tank with their space suits on. Unless this sentence can be sourced, it needs to be stricken. EJSawyer (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced, Confidential is the source. What I heard is that the siut was a replica and did not deal with water so they waterproofed it or adapted it or something. -- Matthew RD 18:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It was Confidential I was watching. To directly quote the crew member - "Because it's coming out of the water, and their suits were designed to be used in space and not in the sea, we've had to adapt it slightly". ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct Laurel and Hardy film

edit request - according to the fourth dimension section of http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010tb7q, The Laurel and Hardy film is : The Flying Deuces: not Beau Hunks:

"The old movie that the Doctor becomes a part of is The Flying Deuces (1939) directed by A. Edward Sutherland. It stars Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy and the Doctor's intervention comes as the comic duo is dancing to Shine on Harvest Moon."

main image

Okay... There is a discussion about the fair use of the image of the silent. Unless it is decided to remove that image, deleting it here is premature, and replacing it with a totally unrelated image of an object in an entirely different context is absurd. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Title picture and NFCC

a picture of Richard M Nixon, a replica of which is depicted in the episode

I contest the use of the File:The Silent on this article. It is perfectly valid on the article on the Silence, but it fails the NFCC here.

Firstly, no image is necessary. It is not necessary to the reader's understanding of the episode (which is the subject of the article) to know what the Silence look like. Thus it fails the NFCC. If we need an illustration, (and we don't have to have one) then the iconic 1969 astronaut suit (which is afterall the title of the article) is perfectly acceptable, and a FREE one is available. The astronaut that "kills" the doctor (and is seen on some of the promotional for this article) is an EXACT replica of the Apollo 11 suit, which we have available FREE. In the circumstance there's no justification for Non-free content here.--Scott Mac 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

As we never see the suit in this scenario in the episode, how can we say it adequately illustrates the episode? Wouldn't this picture mislead people into believing that some or all of this episode were set on the moon? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It may well mislead an illiterate person into thinking that, just as someone seeing only the picture from the article Finding Nemo might assume that the page was about an aquarium. However, we assume that our readers read the article to give context to the images (indeed, we require that non-free images are subject to written critical commentary), so in this case, I doubt anyone would be misled. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on here but it is certainly not a concern with improving the article. I note that treasury tag, who is consumed with deleting this topic (is he a Silent?) has deleted the image based on an outdate edit of the image file which he actually dates with the exact time of the old edit. Maybe we should have a diner as the main image, given that there is a diner in the episode. Or better yet, a picture of Richard Nixon. He's in the episode too, isn't he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

I don't know what is going on here but it is certainly not a concern with improving the article. WP:AGF. I note that treasury tag, who is consumed with deleting this topic (is he a Silent?)... WP:NPA. ...based on an outdate edit of the image file which he actually dates with the exact time of the old edit. I don't follow the last part of your sentence, but at the time I saved my edit removing the image from the article, it was because there was no WP:FUR on the file page. I'm sorry if you don't like Wikipedia's policy which requires this, but you may just have to cope. Maybe we should have a diner as the main image, given that there is a diner in the episode. Perhaps, though that's fairly obvious less illustrative than showing the specific model of historic spacesuit which was used to specific artistic effect in the episode. Or better yet, a picture of Richard Nixon. I wouldn't object to this, actually, although we are of course allowed more than one image. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Would I be correct in assuming there hasn't yet been a review for the Silent image? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've now done this myself. I dare say I've done it wrong, however let it not be said that I didn't try. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this picture? http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/File:Burning_boats.jpg or this http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/File:Astronaut_framed.jpg --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You're doing it again. Listen: if you set out from the starting point that we must have an image, and then try to think of a justification for it, you will invariably fail. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Purely decorative images are not appropriate." I think what you're trying to say is that no one can ever justify sticking any non-free image on that infobox, because its purpose for being there would only ever be purely decorative. A single image from the episode would never be able to convey enough information to siginificantly increase the readers' understanding of it. Yes? :) ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mean that. Sometimes, an aspect of an episode is subject to significant critical commentary in an article which really needs an illustration in order to increase readers' understanding. See the picture at Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) for example – that episode marked the first ever time that MASSIVE animation software was used on television. This was a significant aspect of production, much remarked upon in the media and thus in the article, but it really couldn't be that clear to readers unless they saw the graphics in question.
Take a look at Vincent and the Doctor: the delightful audacity of the BBC in comparing Tony Curran's face to Vincent van Gogh's self-portrait was also remarked upon, and also couldn't be described fully without a screenshot.
However, these are both 'chance' happenings – frequently, an episode of Doctor Who will air when no particular visual aspect of it has gained comment. Sometimes the plot will, sometimes the dialogue will, sometimes the casting will, but there is no automatic supposition that every ep will contain a valid screenshot. (However, I do agree that it's nice when they do!) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for the examples. So the main problem with the Silent was that it was basically just a picture of an alien standing there, an alien which will no doubt appear again in another episode. The current image (someone in spacesuit, on earth, next to a lake, killing the lead character) gives across plenty of information about this particular episode so is a far more acceptable use of a non-free image. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail. The current unclear image shows nothing remotely essential. "A man in an astronaut suit kills the doctor on a beach" is sufficient. What his regeration looks like is hardly an essential part of the plot - and this image fails to help the reader understand that anyway. Basically, you are looking for a decoration for an infobox and then attempting to justify it under the NFCC. That is disallowed. Any illustration must be driven by the content, and be of the nature where one would think "hey, the reader can't understand this critical element unless we show a picture here, because there's no other way of getting it across, and the article won't function unless we do". Please stop trying to find a picture for the infobox, anything driven by that motive is disallowed.--Scott Mac 12:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail indeed since it is a little girl in the suit and not a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.12.251.46 (talk • contribs)

Woah! The picture wasn't added by me or anyone in this thread. If you read the thread you will notice I was mereley asking questions about the images and what was acceptable. I was doing this for my own better understanding of the way Wikipedia works, so I am able to recognise an image that doesn't qualify for NFCC and be able to remove it with conviction, or defend it if it does meet the criteria. Now, because I've got two experienced Wikipedian's telling me different things, I still have no idea what to do if someone adds an image to that infobox. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I assumed it was you because of this comment. By bad. However, I think TreasuryTag and I are essentially saying the same thing. If the text and content of the article means a particular image is essential to understanding a significant facet of the article, then fine. However, looking for a decoration and using the text to justify it is the wrong way about.--Scott Mac 12:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing this image, it is the same as blanking an article during an AfD, it is both rude and considered vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.12.251.46 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: it wasn't me who removed it. And it is not vandalism. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 12:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I was confused because the image had been there a long time without scrutiny and had been uploaded by another experienced editor. I assumed by that that the new image was acceptable and looked for an explanation as to why, hence the above comment which no one had disagreed with until today. Don't worry, I'll get there eventually. :) ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment, but just let the current image stand until all this is over so that no one adds a totally different new image, or somesuch. Anyway, constantly reverting draws attention away from the discussion here, which by the way is just a reiteration of an old (2+ years) policy. DonQuixote (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If the image is breaking copyright laws, I'm not sure how leaving it in the article is the most sensible thing to do. I did post below about a week ago asking if it could be left blank until someone finds an appropriate image and gains concensus for it before its inclusion in the article. Could we not do it that way? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If not sensible, then it's the least time consuming. Yeah, I noticed your post below and agreed with it, but as events unfolded, it has become the least time consuming to just let the image stand until policy is affirmed. DonQuixote (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think saving time now helps stop copyright infringement now or in the future. Whatever we do people are just going to keep adding random NFCC pictures in the same way as people are going to keep moving River into the companions bit or replace the entire article with expletives. We'd treat the latter two with a quick revert, so surely it'd be quicker to just treat any NFCC image in the same way and refer to this discussion or a relevant policy page until someone can prove they have an image that is valid. Just leaving it there just gives everyone a false impression about what is allowed, so they'll probably just go and upload another one to another article that doesn't already have an image and then we'll spend more time chasing it and repeating the arguement all over again... and again... and again... ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be more accurate with the analogies, River is one companion who's had her discussion(s)...same with Rory, and it'll continue with new characters (like Canton). Similarly, each infobox image had their own discussion, and unfortunately each new one will have their own in future. Unfortunately, this will go on again and again and again, as mentioned, until more people realise and accept that Wikipedia has adopted policies as it has matured (RS, NFCC, etc). DonQuixote (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

May I add "<!-- Please read Wikipedia:Non-free_content - Any screenshots added here must conform to this policy. -->" to the image field of this articles infobox, or at least something similar? ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We should probably add that to all infoboxes. DonQuixote (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Done 1 down, ~213 to go! :S ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Concensus request

Please can we leave the infobox as it is now (no image), until a concensus has been met regarding an appropriate picture, whether it be Silent, Space suit, something else from the episode or nothing at all. Please also could a concensus be reached somewhere regarding the use of non-free images in all Doctor Who episode articles and gain some uniformity as currently some articles have them and some don't. If we're adding non-free images to the articles, we obviously need to review/rationalise/etc. each one. So we need to collectively help each other make sure this is done. I'm sure everyone involved would really like to avoid arguements and edit warring like this from happening again. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, a discussion "what shall we put in the infobox?" is invalid. Unfree images are not allowed to decorate or to illustrate the subject in general. They are only allowed if needed to describe something that's in the body of the article. If they are, perhaps they can be placed in the infobox. But a discussion that begins with "we want a screen-shot in the box" and then scrambles about for one it can justify is the wrong way about.--Scott Mac 08:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Impossible Astronaut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruby2010 comment! 15:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will review soon. Ruby2010 comment! 15:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• A few minor reverts, nothing to get too worried about

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Most of the article looks great. The only issue are the references. Make sure all have dates, access dates, and publishers. Also, websites with no print publications should not be italicized (such as Digital Spy). I'll place the review on hold while this gets sorted. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 22:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm done. Thanks for the review. -- Matthew RD 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Is BBC considered a print source? It's italicized several times. Ditto with BBC News Online, MTV, Radio Free Skaro. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Glimmer for stepping in here. I also made a few ref formatting changes myself. The article now looks great. Pass for GA. Nice work Matthew, and keep up the good work! Ruby2010 comment! 04:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuity-The Valyard

The puzzling thing about this episode is how can the Doctor die before creating the Valeyard? As explained in The Two Doctors such an event would trigger the "collapse of the universe" in "A very few centuries" and that was even when the Time Lords were still around.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Within the logic of the show, time can be rewritten. And WP:FORUM. DonQuixote (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of fans have asked the same thing regarding the Valeyard so WP:FORUM does not apply.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is not directly about improving this article, it is WP:FORUM, even if fans are talking about it. Unless you have a reliable source that mentions the apparent contradiction... --MASEM (t) 12:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Many of the Doctor Who episode articles have a "Continuity" section (see The Curse of the Black Spot and The Doctor's Wife for two such examples) and a good number of those have no references (reliable or otherwise) making them OR fests (take a look at The Big Bang (Doctor Who) for one such example). Though in this case the Valeyard being between the Doctor twelfth and final incarnations is verifiable as is the consequences of changing your personal timeline once a particular future becomes "fixed" (Two Doctors). But this raises the question of should any of the episode articles have a "Continuity" section at all even if the points are verifiable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're saying the Doctor can't die because of the events in Two Doctors. Do you believe the BBC would kill the Doctor off, or everything will be explained by the end of the series? After all Doctor Who (series 7) is confirmed with Matt Smith...Edgepedia (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually he died in Turn Left, so that's possible. And in The Girl Who Waited, Amy met an older self who can't have existed as she was saved, so that's possible. So now we moving over into WP:FORUM, and perhaps we just the BBC explain it all. Edgepedia (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)