Talk:The Stolen Earth

Redirect?

Someone should probably autoforward stolen earth to The Stolen Earth, since people might omit the "The" when typing in the search box. Digifiend (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you do it yourself? I have done so now, also for the stolen earth and Stolen Earth. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't have redirects for all possible typo's; it creates a navigational mess. The title is quite unambiguous, and with the title all-caps, also case-insensitive in the search box. — Edokter • Talk • 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy, I didn't know how to do an auto-forward myself. Case insensitivity and missing the word "the" are the main typos, which are now sorted, mispellings don't need autoforwarding. What we have now should be fine. Digifiend (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's sorted now, although I would have kept Stolen Earth. As for redirects, see WP:R, it explains it completely :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a redirect from stolen earth would be fine, as that's the sort of thing that might get typed in the search box. U-Mos (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:R is quite clear; uncomplete titles are not on the list of things that should be redirected, and casing is not a problem here, since the title isn't mixed-case. — Edokter • Talk • 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable choice of redirect, and there's certainly nothing in the guideline to prohibit it. And please don't abuse your admin tools by deleting it again: CSD#R3 is for implausible typos or misnomers, of which this is neither. If you want to see it deleted, go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Wurtzel (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Stolen Earth" is a misnomer and an unlikely search term, as the title itself - "The Stolen Earth" - is quite unambiguous. "The" is part of the title. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and Wikipedia:Redirect for refernence. — Edokter • Talk • 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast?

Is there really no guest cast information for this episode? U-Mos (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I expect it would be the same cast as Journey's End. Anyone able to confirm this? Digifiend (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. As we have no sources for it, we cannot add anything just yet. Let's just have patience. --SoWhy ^Talk 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just surprised nothing had been in DWM or something along with other episodes (apparently the whole thing's super top secret). U-Mos (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As the other source said, the one where all the other episode names came from, you are correct, it is supposed to be kept as secret as possible. So DWM most likely doesn't know more than we do or at least did not until now, we will see if further issues report something. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It may also share some casting details with Turn Left - some of the TV listings mags are saying it's a three-parter. Digifiend (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Today's edition of Radio Times (with the Doctor, Rose, Martha and Donna on the front) confirms the return of Davros at last!!!Blaine Coughlan (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

At least two newspapers printed photos yesterday too. Digifiend (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is Davros confirmed? I didn't notice a reference in the pp 12 - 17 feature. Could you please be more specific, Blaine? Apart from the fact that I just bought it to read that very confirmation, the article will probably need a citation eventually fot the claims U-Mos has added. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah there! I'm sure you have the best of intentions at heart, but I added Davros to the cast list with a reliable source (ie the Daily Telegraph). U-Mos (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd accept them as evidence, yes. But seriously, do I have to go to a forum just to get someone to give a page number? :( Perfectly good money wasted. Never mind, it's on page 154 in the "next week" bit. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The army guy from The Poison Sky is in this, just watch the clip for the next episode. If someone could add him to the cast list, please. By the way I have forgot my password. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.179.188 (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image?

Questions...

1. Are any of the images here (spoilers) appropriate, meeting the NFCC?
2. Can we source it?

It seems a pity not to use them, they're so nice! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The assembled cast image may meet NFCC, the others don't tell much. — Edokter • Talk • 13:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought; the question is now, then - is that blog a RS? I know the person who runs it and know that it's true, but that's no good, of course... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So, where did he get it from? — Edokter • Talk • 13:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He's a media-bloke. They're the images they send to listings magazines. I'm assuming we can't use such material, though? Until it's published in a mag? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If ever. Copyright! Digifiend (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why TreasuryTag asked about NFCC...I would, as Edoktor says, say the assembled cast probably meets the NFCC. They are promotional pictures after all. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As we clearly said above, one image there pretty much meets our guidelines for using copyrighted material. The issue is the sourcing of it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are promo pics, so the source has to be the BBC. Can't we use the blog if the blogger is, as you says, someone who works with such things and thus receives them from the BBC? --SoWhy ^Talk 14:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But how do people know that the blogger isn't making them himself? I know I know, but the blog is a self-published source of material. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of common sense should tell anyone those pics come from the BBC, because that is the only place it could have come from. But with any luck, the BBC, or another news outlet, will release those images in the near future. — Edokter • Talk • 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I could get away with uploading one? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go; do make improvements to the formatting, size, caption and rationale (on the image-page) - please! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this not be better in Journey's End? Companions such as Jack and Sarah Jane are not confirmed for episode 12 yet. U-Mos (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now :-) The source of the image stated that it is a promo-pic for "The Stolen Earth"... see above. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well in that case I'll stick them in the infobox. U-Mos (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the image. Again, images must meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Please see WP:NFCC#8; the image does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Matthew (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On such a subjective criterium, you need to base your removal on some solid argument, other then to just cite #8. Until then, revereted with the arguments that such a massive reunion of so much past companions is newsworthy, and therefor increases reader's understanding, both to die-hard fans as well as people who have never seen the show. — Edokter • Talk • 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your above rational does not state why you need an image and cannot use text. Matthew (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say because most people watching the show only, might not be able to identify Sarah Jane or Jack just with the text. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is written not just for fans, and the image defenitely helpt to identify the cast for those not familiar to them. — Edokter • Talk • 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Their respective articles have images; it is therefore clear to me that text is more than adequate. I see no compelling argument here why the image's "presence would significantly increase [the] readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of this image remaining, as per above. U-Mos (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"To show what they look like" is not a good enough reason. Explain why the image is necessary. Matthew (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other articles have no bearing here. Matthew, NO image is ever necessary. Now come up with some argument besides repetatively quoting #8. You are becoming quite disruptive. — Edokter • Talk • 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about you. Last time I checked the onus is on those seeking to include not remove. So no, I don't intend to write a detailed comment about why it does not meet WP:NFCC--it's patently obvious to me that it doesn't. You are welcome to explain why it meets the non-free content policy though. "It shows what they look like" doesn't cut it though. Matthew (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What is disruptive is the edit war that is going onin regards to the image in question. It would be best if this discussion played out completely before another revert to the page takes place. I will be monitoring the page, and I don't want to see "fourth" reverts played out just after the 24 hour time limit expires, because that is clearly gaming the system and still constitutes violation of the policy.

As far as the image is concerned, I have to agree that there doesn't appear to be much reason to have it when the page itself does not actually show a reason to need to exist. Maybe we should work on that issue before worrying about what image to use in the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, I will not revert this again to avoid an edit war, but I invite you to respond to the hidden message rather than removing the image again: "FAIR USE RATIONALE on image page. If this does fail point 8 (which is debatable), a nomination would lead to it being deleted in due course. Immediate removal is unnecessary." U-Mos (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not in question; this is the penultimate episode of this series, and already discussed in the media. How does this come into the game? Also not that metthew has been reverted by multiple other editors. — Edokter • Talk • 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First, U-Mos, how can you say "I will not revert this again", yet you deliberately disregarded my comments to let this lie till the discussion is completely over and did do it again? Reverting up to the third time does not mean you were not edit warring.

Edokter, WP:NOTE clearly says "significant coverage". Being the next to last episode does not make something automatically notable, nor does the fact that a few sources might have mentioned the airdate of the episode. Please read the definition of "significant" at NOTE. The page contains nothing more than a plot summary. But this is not the topic of discussion.

As for Matthew, the fact that several editors are disagreeing with Matthew DOES NOT change the fact that you are ALL engaging in an edit war. Nor does that make it okay to do so. Being the only Admin here, Edokter, I would have expected you to step up and take charge to make sure that this edit war had not occurred in the first place. Obviously, my faith would have been misguided.

In response to the image, I'm not seeing how an image of the cast lends to the understanding of a page that has nothing but a plot summary. There is no discussion of the cast: what it took to bring them together, anything that even remotely says "please use an image to better illustrate what is being said". It isn't like this is a page on the cast, so simple identification becomes questionable. I could also say that the image fails #4, given that no actual source is provided as to where the image comes from (saying "from the press kit" means nothing without some verification to back it up). Also, given that the image is of living people, there being no free alternative becomes questionable as well...then again, I assume it would be hard to get them into their show clothes outside the series. Other than that, the only argument I'm really seeing is the fact that other episodes have them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So far the arguments against the image are reliability of sourcing it and various arguments that it violates NFCC. The former is partly an NFCC issue in its own right, and I will deal with ordinary reliability concerns first, followed by all NFCC concerns collectively. It is common sense that this picture's validity is no more in need of a citation, or indeed helped by one, than the whiteness of snow (a not uncommonly used example in these discussions). There's simply no way of faking this kind of image. Now on to NFCC concerns. Insofar as an NFCC concern is grounds for exclusion of an image from an article, it is a genuine NFCC concern; and insofar as this holds, it is grounds for the image's deletion. I thereby recommend that anyone who does feel such concerns are genuine should attempt to achieve such deletion, as it seems that would be warranted by their position; and, furthermore, I recommend that, as long as no-one is attempting any such discussion, an NFCC argument should not be the basis for opposing the image's inclusion in this article. I am making these recommendations because of a "you can't have it both ways" feeling; these recommendations should not, therefore, be interpreted as taking a side on this controversial question. That'll be taken care of by what I say next. ;)

Meanwhile, the arguments for inclusion are basically that these images are "nice" (as TreasuryTag puts it) and helpful in explaining such things as the secret army. Oh, and the standard used in other episode articles. I have never seen an image on Wikipedia that would resist the "you could just use text" argument, and I think you can judge an image's utility in developing others' understanding of the issue by considering the motives of that image's manufacturers. While purely logical creatures have no usage for images at all, and would prove all geometrical theorems without the aid of any diagrams, it happens to be true (for psychological reasons) that humans do benefit from this sort of image, and we know this because that's why the BBC uses these sorts of images in the first place! I hope that this analysis suffices to fulfill the burden of proof, assuming it falls on those wanting to include the image (which according to policies I suppose it does.) If not, I will add to the case involving standards.

WP:OTHERSTUFF is intended, in my opinion, to safeguard against people calling for content's inclusion because it is similar in its level of vacuousness or lack thereof to material with which little else can be found in common. Yet anything under a Wikiproject, such as Doctor Who episode titles, is in my opinion worth standardizing. For what it's worth, it is worth including images in all such articles rather than excluding them all. This is true not only because of the considerations above, but also because of related concerns elsewhere. Indeed, don't pretty much all articles on TV episodes use an image this way? (Actually no, but all the exceptions I have encountered are in episode articles for TV shows whose episodes on the whole are sufficiently less-than-notable that the episodes on which articles are written are selective, rather than them all being done by workers for a Wikiproject. There is no such thing, for instance, As Wikiproject Peep Show.)

I think I have made my position and most if not all of its causes clear, and I hope I have been polite enough to not be a cause of angst. I think in a way being an unregistered user has helped me, because my inability to edit, hence to enter an edit war (although I would dispute that anyone other than Matthew or perhaps U-Mos is so guilty), means I've not become worked up about it. I don't really want to conjecture about that, however. All I'm saying is, the two-man minority here (three if Digifiend is on their side, but I can't work out what s/he meant), are imo wrong for the reasons outlined above. For what it's worth, I am persuaded by the arguments given above by people such as Edokter for why NFCC#8 doesn't count, but for the moment I do not have any additional argument to offer in criticism of it. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a WikiProject, not even a guideline can contradict a policy. The non-free content criteria for #8 require specific things to be in place to satisfy, specifically the part that says "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Not seeing any significance in understanding with this image, especially when there isn't anything in the article other than a plot summary.

I'm not sure what your argument is on this "it's as real a snow" analogy. If it's toward what I said, then my statements were in regard to sourcing where the image came from. #4 states, "Non-free content must have been published outside Wikipedia." Given that the image is claiming to be from a press kit specifically for this episode, we would need to verify such. For all anyone knows, the image is just some random promotional image for all the characters and had nothing to do with this particular episode. Hence, without an actual source we cannot realiably verify where the image came from.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The snow comparison refers to the fact that some things don't need citations. Your sentence "Unfortunately, a WikiProject, not even a guideline can contradict a policy" is, in my view, mistaken. Every policy can, in principle, be foolish to follow; it just depends on context. We ignore rules in many contexts for a variety of reasons. Roughly speaking, the arguments given by my side so far have relied on pointing to ideas why the letter of the policies should be considered less important than the spirit of making a better encyclopaedia. Frankly, I think a classic example is trying to apply NFCC to promotional material. NFCC's rationale is legal. Who is going to sue someone for (technically unauthorised) usage of their promotional products with the effect of ... well, promoting things? As far as the BBC is likely to be concerned, that has the exact opposite effect of "normal" copyvio. I thereby stand by my previous claim that the image shoulod be included in the article. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between ignoring all rules when it benefits an article, and actually writing a guideline or an unofficial MOS deliberately contradicting a policy. How exactly does a lone image of the cast make the article better when there is nothing else in the article but a plot summary? It doesn't add to the understanding of the plot summary, so it doesn't actually do anything but become eye candy - something non-free images should never do. If your argument is, "well, it's promotional and that is what the BBC wants," well Wikipedia is not here to promote ANYTHING; it is here to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia. Non-free images are to be used when necessary to create a better understanding of the surrounding material. There isn't really any material that needs to be clarified via this image at this moment in time. There is nothing discussing the image, there is nothing the image enhances other than colorfullness in the article (which is not a reason to keep an image). I'm glad to see you've ignored my other point that it lacks a published source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Bignole's comments towards me earlier, I stated I would not revert again immediately after my last revert, and I would not do so again, as I said, even if the page was unprotected. The reason I (temporailarly) disregarded your request to let it lie was simply because Matthew had ignored what I felt was a very civil action, where I pointed out that immediate removal, whether the image should be included or not, is wholly unnecessary. I invite him again to respond to this: "FAIR USE RATIONALE on image page. If this does fail point 8 (which is debatable), a nomination would lead to it being deleted in due course. Immediate removal is unnecessary." If the image were to remain on the page with a deletion-consideration notice, people could see it in the article and make an informed decision on whether it should stay. Thus it would not be down to one person simply removing it from sight. Personally I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion myself, even though I don't believe it should be, simply because this would eventually yield a result that would have to be followed by us all. Although this would not work with the image off the page. What I resent is it coming down to the image's current status being decided on whoever gets in there before page protection is enforced. The immediate concern should be whether the image should be on the page while discussion is ongoing, and it seems obvious to me that it should be (especially as Matthew seems rather reluctant to state his case). I apologise if my actions have been less than desirable, but rest assured I am trying to work for what's right here. U-Mos (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

All right BIGNOLE, gloves off a little bit.

"There is a difference between ignoring all rules when it benefits an article, and actually writing a guideline or an unofficial MOS deliberately contradicting a policy." This comment, insofar as it is true, is disingenuous in this context. The difference is that a guideline or MOS is just another rule, albeit a less "authoritative" one, like comparing state court to supreme court or something. The real question is at the article level. A "lower" rule may or may not be deliberate in any defiance of a policy it commits, but by definition to defy a rule is simply to say it is sometimes inapplicable. One must ignore one rule or the other, or both; which is it? I argue we should be including the image, just as almost everyone else does. As hard as it may be to spell out the rationale for any rule, big or small, that's what's key, and I think most editors here would agree that the Wikiproject Doctor Who is very sensible to include these images.

As for your NPOV argument, images do not promote views. THat's just playing with words, specifically the verb "promote". It's a pun basically. "Promotion", insofar as NPOV prohibits it, means saying who's right or wrong in a controversial issue. If NPOV can no more tell us to exclude promotional material than to include it, because both take a stance if your reasoning is correct, or neither take a stance if mine is, on any matter.

You say I ignored your point about it not being published elsewhere. My answer was meant to be the following, but I probably didn't make my self clear: requirements of citing other publications in general are based on the problem of original research, unverifiable claims etc. There is no way this image can be the invention of anyone not in a position to qualify. We all know where this image comes from - the BBC, not one of us.

While we're talking about ignoring arguments, I would like you to explain why an image no-one wants deleted is a problem for you in the NFCC sense. 90.210.193.126 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that until we have a better understanding of what this episode is all about that the promo shot fails #8 for this article, might I suggest that it would be an excellent addition to the "Companions" section of the main Doctor Who article, as most of those pictured are described in the text. Even if we think this is a spoiler, the fact that all these actors will be back in the conclusion of this season has been reported, so the image itself is not a problem to include there. --MASEM 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You cannot write a rule on a WikiProject page that says "all episode articles must have images in the infobox regardless", when we have a policy that says "it must meet this criteria". You're contradicting a major rule. You can word around it so that you don't clearly state "violate the rule", but saying things like "when applicable, you should include an image of..."

NPOV is not just for "views". Wikipedia is neutral and does not promote other websites, shows, books, etc etc. Wikipedia does not advertise for shows - since you're saying that the BBC wouldn't care we're using their promo image because it's free publicity, then it seems like the image has not value other than to promote the show. Wiki also is not a repository for images. There must be a reason to keep the image on the page, not simply because it looks nice. That reason is supplied for by WP:NFCC.

Again, you are missing the point about finding a reliably published source for the image. First, if the image was stolen (i.e. someone hacked into the BBC's computer network and stole the image...guess what, that stuff DOES happen) then it cannot be on Wikipedia. If the image was fan created (yes, fans do get the gumption to create their own images and try and pass them off as real ones - just go ask the folks over at Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight (film) how many times they have to fend off fan create artwork which looks damn good and could pass for the real thing) then it needs to be removed, because we do not promote people's personal creations. How would you create it yourself? Photoshop does wonders today on computers, and it's as simple as splicing each character into a background. Works really well when you have a single colored background, like black. Now, before you start, I'm not saying that is the case with this image I'm merely stating the possibility when you don't actually have a source to show that it was published somewhere else. And yes, I have seen really good cut and paste jobs. The point is, you're doing a lot of assuming in regard to the picture's authenticity. How about an actual source that show's it's an official BBC image released to promote this particular episode.

I've already explained why I think it fails NFCC #4 and #8, so there isn't anything I need to waste my energy repeating.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I say again: consider it for deletion. Stick a notice on it. Fine. Good, even. But there is absolutely no reason to remove it without discussion being completed. Speed is not the priority. U-Mos (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the above messages so I'm only replying to U-Mos here. Conversely, why not leave the image out until discussion concludes? I'd also like to point out that a free equivalent could reasonably be created. Matthew (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I see it like this: if the image were to remain on the page while discussion is ongoing, it could be seen by all and seen to be disputed. This would allow a greater number of people (and therefore a better representation) to be involved in the discussion (which would then be done in an offcial and binding manner). U-Mos (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks U-Mos for repeating the point that, if Bignole really feels that way, a deletion notice is worthwhile. Thanks also for that argument about why the image should be up for the moment rather than down for the moment.

I'm going to respond to Bignole's latest post later, as I have a busy day today; but, just as a taster, I'm going to be arguing that he is misrepresenting much of the policy he cites.

I wish this article hadn't become fully protected. I don't want to have to filter all edits through an admin. Mind you, that would give Edokter, who is on our side, lots of power ... but that's bias. (Is Bignole an admin?) I wonder what we'd do if a single issue for an article caused an edit war between admins. :p

OK, one uncontroversial sentence to go out on: Matthew, I know this may sound stupid, but I don't know how this image could be replaced with a free one as per your recommendation (at least not before this whole discussion becomes void due to the episode airing), so could you please enlighten me a little as to what you think could be done, and how (and perhaps even do it ;))? 90.210.193.126 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon, I'm not an Admin so you need not worry about such a thing, nor are my views misrepresenting of the policy. Regardless, you may want to see this page and here. The image is up for deletion, which makes any further discussion on this page moot. Have a good day gentlemen (and ladies if any are present).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be unlocked?

This episode is next week and with new information from todays episode trailer shouldn't it really be unlocked in preparance? Jammy (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast

I say if they're in the trailer then they're in the episode, and Ianto, Gwen and Sarah Jane's little helper (Luke?) were in the trailer. So someone stick them in the infobox. On a side note, I'm not sure that Martha is going to be a companion in the true sense in the last two epiosdes. Perhaps she should be moved to guest cast until we know for sure? U-Mos (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Companions

I belive Captain Jack and Sarah Jane are returning for this episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.16.94 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They are back, it's in the trailer. 82.12.88.229 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dalek Colourings

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the Daleks would nto be the bronze like colouring they have been up until EotD? (the trailer shows a RED Dalek) 82.12.88.229 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)