![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Uh, I think they were both supposed to go the same way. I asked questions, as I'm still new enough not to know these things, but I think they both should be Genera of .... Or check with WP:TOL naming conventions, maybe. But not one one way and the other another. KP Botany 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The cfd per WP:CFD of 5 January 2007 (closed by yourself) has become confusing. The merge should be Missionaries_in_Africa to Christian missionaries_in_Africa but the wording has been corrupted. roundhouse 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the purple barnstar Tim. :) semper fi — Moe 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: [1].
This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: [2]. However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.
However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: [3]. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.
Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: [4].
I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?
Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. -- 172.161.68.238 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you closed this CfD with the statement "... but there are more keeps than deletes so keep." This suggests you are interpreting it as a vote, but I suspect you already know the XfDs are discussions not votes. Therefore the appropriate closing would probably be "no consensus" (default keep). The reason I bring this up is that judging from Category talk:Administrators open to recall, the CfD messages made it look like a consensus to keep was forming, when in fact it is as controversial as ever. — Dgies t c 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Indian pastors, deleted by yourself acc to this cfd, has been re-created by the incorrigible Pastor Wayne. roundhouse 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Rwandan Genocide was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Black hole was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. -- WikiInquirer 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC) talk to me
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Atmosphere was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
It is with great relief that I have traced the article UNIT Dating Controversy to you, as I have one very big question about it--or perhaps it is two very closely related ones. You say that in The Green Death there are on view two calendars, one showing a leap year February with the 1st and 29th falling on Sundays and therefore 1976, while another shows an April (expressly labeled as such, or is that the only 30-day month in '76 that matches this calendar?). The February is seen at a Global Chemicals guard station in the location film, of course, but the 1st and 29th are in the third column of dates from the left. For this to be Sundays, the far left column must be Fridays. This American has never seen such a calendar, and British writers/fans Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping state in their book, Dr. Who: The Discontinuity Guide with no ifs ands or buts that it shows the key dates on Tuesdays (which is how I read it), and is therefore 1972. Other sources have referred to this as a 1972 calendar, so I'd like to know how you get Sundays/1976 (justifying Sundays is all that is necessary, of course), just to have all the evidence at hand. I'm also unaware of any other calendar in this story, and, again, no other source mentions one, so I ask you to specify the location of the April one. Please respond as soon as it is convenient for you, as I would find an alternative interpretation to the conventional one fascinating. And failing that, the article would need to be revised, which should not be put off. Thank you. Ted Watson 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, we're agreed that "1976" needs to go (as for hacking, "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle). I don't understand your distinction with a shown calendar versus a date in dialogue. One's as clear as the other, even if you have to research the calendar to determine its date--it is what it is. Furthermore, I've always subscribed to the theory that "Jeremy" here, "BBC3" in "Daemons," the inflations of the Olympic record and London's population (this one doesn't even make any sense, as the various threats to the city depicted in the UNIT stories should--if anything--drive people AWAY from it, resulting in a less-than-reality population of London in the Whoniverse) in "Invasion of the Dinosaurs," and the female PM in "Terror of the Zygons," are throw-away bits paying lip-service to the concept of UNIT being in the future and should be ignored rather than considered "true" evidence, as its quite clear that this is what they actually were, with the creative team making no serious effort to avoid contemporary trappings ("Ambassadors of Death" with its British space program was initially developed as a Second Doctor/Jamie/Zoe story without UNIT and set much farther in the future, and there was no further mention of these UK endeavors until the era's producer Barry Letts and script editor Terrance Dicks had departed the programme). But that's just one theory, I freely admit. One last thing--the April calendar has been CLAIMED "by the author of one of the best guides to continuity." Anybody who mentions the '72 calendar, and that's quite a few, states its location; when somebody--one somebody--alleges there's a contradictory one elsewhere in the story but gives no hint just where it is, that's not "sourced," or doing a good job of writing a guide. If you can come up with some specifics, fine, but until then, I have to doubt it exists. (Just why you were so ready to throw Cornell, Day & Topping's work out the window earlier yet now stand by Parkin's when he's all alone on this point is beyond me.) Ted Watson 20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
At least you implicitly concede that the transcript's I.D. of the scene as taking place in the "pithead office" is unjustified ("AN office," your words, my emphasis; this is from the perspective of the document being a transcript of the final work as aired, not anything else, e.g., pre-production script drafts). Indeed, the more I've thought about this, my memory is that the scene was at the garage where they had first asked for the cutting tools, and given my experience with US counterparts a well out-of-date calendar on a wall would not be unusual. But, I admit, the transcript doesn't suggest this. "Bishop does concede that there is simply no 'magic bullet theory' to explain UNIT dating and opted to go for the contemporary setting." Exactly MY point, that through his book he does not "try to handle the UNIT dating matter" as you claimed earlier, and therefore that online chronology is open to criticism for dealing with Bishop's dates as if they were carefully considered. You can say your last sentence as many times as you want, and as many people as may can stick their heads in the sand and not deal with the truth, but, adding in the fact that early in "Autons," a Time Lord informs the Doctor that the Master has just arrived on Earth, the evidence about the amount of time that passes between that story and "MOE" IS NOT REASONABLY OPEN TO ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION, PERIOD. ("The Master does sweet FA...." I don't mean to imply or insinuate anything beyond this next statement: I have absolutely no idea what that means despite being quite familiar with the events under discussion, and therefore no idea what the intent of your parenthetical aside here is. Clarification is requested.) As for Face of the Enemy, David McIntee (and I concede that I'm not sure if I spelled his last name correctly, as I don't have anything with his name on or in it currently accessible) does not "handle" this at all, he simply presents a situation in his novel that is grossly inconsistent (putting it mildly) with the TV story to which his is a sequel, without acknowledging it at all, let alone offering some kind of explanation of how the Doctor could be so wrong. He had an idea for a story, and didn't give a tinker's damn that it didn't jibe at all with the inspiration. He just ignored the parts of "Inferno" that didn't fit with his conception. I have no respect for someone who has enough interest in something to write a sequel to it, but not enough respect for the original to be reasonably compatible with it. The fact that there appears to have been no criticism of this novel on those grounds is further evidence that the fans of today are interested in the original novels & audio adventures, and now the new TV series, and hold the original programme in disdain. I agree that "It's not absurd to seek to incorporate stories into a timeline rather than just jettison them outright." I never said otherwise, only that there are SOME for which it just can't be done without throwing common sense (if not more) to the wind. Get that? I made no generalization! Ted Watson 23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finally addressing the evidence for the one-year gap. I freely admit that some--but only some--of your points are well taken, the Master's detailed knowledge of the actual background of the circus owner being particularly solid. I should have also admitted before that I had not seen the original "Archive" feature on this story (though I would love to have a complete set for the UNIT stories). Concerning the lack of the Master in the initial development of MOE, this would not be the only time that one of Andrew Pixley's updates for a Complete...Doctor special contradicted the original archive (presumably because in the interim further research refuted the earlier statement), so the proverbial jury is still out on that one. "The Master is often shown to be...having several ideas juggling at once...." Yes, including your example, but these are invariably multiple alternatives within one overall scheme. Here, the lack of a full year between these two stories asks us to believe that many months before his alliance with the Autons/Nestenes is to have its intended effect, the Master is working on a completely unrelated scheme-of-conquest in the event of the other failing, which goes against his arrogance, etc. Or does it? Come to think of it, when the Mind Parasite "attacks" him and demonstrates his fear, the Master is taunted by images of the Doctor! Maybe he isn't really all that sure of himself! So, I now concede that the evidence is less than conclusive and irrefutable, but this timing remains highly probable, and I still maintain that there must be a pre-existing resistance to the idea for anybody doing serious dating work to give it very little or no consideration as has been the widespread case. Surely this is not just inertia from the two being originally transmitted successively in the same season? "I don't see how this affects whether or not someone can or can't tell that the office sen [sic] is very clearly at the pithead." It doesn't, not directly. It goes to the credibility of both Parkin (who was at first your only and specifics-less source for the existence of the April calendar) and the compiler of the linked-in chronology, who remains your only source to pinpoint the alleged location of "April." As for my reporting you to the moderators, today I received a message that it had been taken down because, according to that message, I had put it up at the wrong place and incorrectly formatted it (I followed the existing instructions as much to the letter as possible given their less than stellar clarity, especially re: format). Given this newest exchange, I won't follow the link given me to try again. We have a definite improvement here, and I repeat my opening sentiment, thank you for actually addressing the evidence. I do have one question, which I freely admit doesn't really have anything to do with our issues--and I do not intend this as criticism of you for making the mention--but your comment "yet another 'Liz Shaw's final story'" intrigues me, in an academic way. There is more than one way to take this. Do you mean that various fans have written her a story depicting her good-bye to the Doctor and UNIT, i.e., a formal, "on-stage" end of her run as his official companion, between Inferno and ...Autons, such as one in the Virgin/Missing Adventure novel The Scales of Injustice? She has made chronologically subsequent "guest appearances," starting with the BBC Books Past Doctor novel, Devil Goblins from Neptune, which still precedes Season 8, and another, whose title I forget but I think it was another V/MA, in which she joins #3 and Jo in a TARDIS trip to another planet (to say nothing about a much older Liz's adventures with P.R.O.B.E.). Again, this is strictly academic curiosity. Ted Watson 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Uh, I think they were both supposed to go the same way. I asked questions, as I'm still new enough not to know these things, but I think they both should be Genera of .... Or check with WP:TOL naming conventions, maybe. But not one one way and the other another. KP Botany 01:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The cfd per WP:CFD of 5 January 2007 (closed by yourself) has become confusing. The merge should be Missionaries_in_Africa to Christian missionaries_in_Africa but the wording has been corrupted. roundhouse 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the purple barnstar Tim. :) semper fi — Moe 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Peloponnesian War was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: [1].
This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: [2]. However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.
However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: [3]. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.
Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: [4].
I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?
Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. -- 172.161.68.238 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you closed this CfD with the statement "... but there are more keeps than deletes so keep." This suggests you are interpreting it as a vote, but I suspect you already know the XfDs are discussions not votes. Therefore the appropriate closing would probably be "no consensus" (default keep). The reason I bring this up is that judging from Category talk:Administrators open to recall, the CfD messages made it look like a consensus to keep was forming, when in fact it is as controversial as ever. — Dgies t c 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Category:Indian pastors, deleted by yourself acc to this cfd, has been re-created by the incorrigible Pastor Wayne. roundhouse 14:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Rwandan Genocide was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Black hole was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. -- WikiInquirer 03:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC) talk to me
![]() |
Thank you for your support of the
Article Improvement Drive. This week Atmosphere was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help. |
It is with great relief that I have traced the article UNIT Dating Controversy to you, as I have one very big question about it--or perhaps it is two very closely related ones. You say that in The Green Death there are on view two calendars, one showing a leap year February with the 1st and 29th falling on Sundays and therefore 1976, while another shows an April (expressly labeled as such, or is that the only 30-day month in '76 that matches this calendar?). The February is seen at a Global Chemicals guard station in the location film, of course, but the 1st and 29th are in the third column of dates from the left. For this to be Sundays, the far left column must be Fridays. This American has never seen such a calendar, and British writers/fans Paul Cornell, Martin Day, and Keith Topping state in their book, Dr. Who: The Discontinuity Guide with no ifs ands or buts that it shows the key dates on Tuesdays (which is how I read it), and is therefore 1972. Other sources have referred to this as a 1972 calendar, so I'd like to know how you get Sundays/1976 (justifying Sundays is all that is necessary, of course), just to have all the evidence at hand. I'm also unaware of any other calendar in this story, and, again, no other source mentions one, so I ask you to specify the location of the April one. Please respond as soon as it is convenient for you, as I would find an alternative interpretation to the conventional one fascinating. And failing that, the article would need to be revised, which should not be put off. Thank you. Ted Watson 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, we're agreed that "1976" needs to go (as for hacking, "Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle). I don't understand your distinction with a shown calendar versus a date in dialogue. One's as clear as the other, even if you have to research the calendar to determine its date--it is what it is. Furthermore, I've always subscribed to the theory that "Jeremy" here, "BBC3" in "Daemons," the inflations of the Olympic record and London's population (this one doesn't even make any sense, as the various threats to the city depicted in the UNIT stories should--if anything--drive people AWAY from it, resulting in a less-than-reality population of London in the Whoniverse) in "Invasion of the Dinosaurs," and the female PM in "Terror of the Zygons," are throw-away bits paying lip-service to the concept of UNIT being in the future and should be ignored rather than considered "true" evidence, as its quite clear that this is what they actually were, with the creative team making no serious effort to avoid contemporary trappings ("Ambassadors of Death" with its British space program was initially developed as a Second Doctor/Jamie/Zoe story without UNIT and set much farther in the future, and there was no further mention of these UK endeavors until the era's producer Barry Letts and script editor Terrance Dicks had departed the programme). But that's just one theory, I freely admit. One last thing--the April calendar has been CLAIMED "by the author of one of the best guides to continuity." Anybody who mentions the '72 calendar, and that's quite a few, states its location; when somebody--one somebody--alleges there's a contradictory one elsewhere in the story but gives no hint just where it is, that's not "sourced," or doing a good job of writing a guide. If you can come up with some specifics, fine, but until then, I have to doubt it exists. (Just why you were so ready to throw Cornell, Day & Topping's work out the window earlier yet now stand by Parkin's when he's all alone on this point is beyond me.) Ted Watson 20:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
At least you implicitly concede that the transcript's I.D. of the scene as taking place in the "pithead office" is unjustified ("AN office," your words, my emphasis; this is from the perspective of the document being a transcript of the final work as aired, not anything else, e.g., pre-production script drafts). Indeed, the more I've thought about this, my memory is that the scene was at the garage where they had first asked for the cutting tools, and given my experience with US counterparts a well out-of-date calendar on a wall would not be unusual. But, I admit, the transcript doesn't suggest this. "Bishop does concede that there is simply no 'magic bullet theory' to explain UNIT dating and opted to go for the contemporary setting." Exactly MY point, that through his book he does not "try to handle the UNIT dating matter" as you claimed earlier, and therefore that online chronology is open to criticism for dealing with Bishop's dates as if they were carefully considered. You can say your last sentence as many times as you want, and as many people as may can stick their heads in the sand and not deal with the truth, but, adding in the fact that early in "Autons," a Time Lord informs the Doctor that the Master has just arrived on Earth, the evidence about the amount of time that passes between that story and "MOE" IS NOT REASONABLY OPEN TO ANY OTHER INTERPRETATION, PERIOD. ("The Master does sweet FA...." I don't mean to imply or insinuate anything beyond this next statement: I have absolutely no idea what that means despite being quite familiar with the events under discussion, and therefore no idea what the intent of your parenthetical aside here is. Clarification is requested.) As for Face of the Enemy, David McIntee (and I concede that I'm not sure if I spelled his last name correctly, as I don't have anything with his name on or in it currently accessible) does not "handle" this at all, he simply presents a situation in his novel that is grossly inconsistent (putting it mildly) with the TV story to which his is a sequel, without acknowledging it at all, let alone offering some kind of explanation of how the Doctor could be so wrong. He had an idea for a story, and didn't give a tinker's damn that it didn't jibe at all with the inspiration. He just ignored the parts of "Inferno" that didn't fit with his conception. I have no respect for someone who has enough interest in something to write a sequel to it, but not enough respect for the original to be reasonably compatible with it. The fact that there appears to have been no criticism of this novel on those grounds is further evidence that the fans of today are interested in the original novels & audio adventures, and now the new TV series, and hold the original programme in disdain. I agree that "It's not absurd to seek to incorporate stories into a timeline rather than just jettison them outright." I never said otherwise, only that there are SOME for which it just can't be done without throwing common sense (if not more) to the wind. Get that? I made no generalization! Ted Watson 23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for finally addressing the evidence for the one-year gap. I freely admit that some--but only some--of your points are well taken, the Master's detailed knowledge of the actual background of the circus owner being particularly solid. I should have also admitted before that I had not seen the original "Archive" feature on this story (though I would love to have a complete set for the UNIT stories). Concerning the lack of the Master in the initial development of MOE, this would not be the only time that one of Andrew Pixley's updates for a Complete...Doctor special contradicted the original archive (presumably because in the interim further research refuted the earlier statement), so the proverbial jury is still out on that one. "The Master is often shown to be...having several ideas juggling at once...." Yes, including your example, but these are invariably multiple alternatives within one overall scheme. Here, the lack of a full year between these two stories asks us to believe that many months before his alliance with the Autons/Nestenes is to have its intended effect, the Master is working on a completely unrelated scheme-of-conquest in the event of the other failing, which goes against his arrogance, etc. Or does it? Come to think of it, when the Mind Parasite "attacks" him and demonstrates his fear, the Master is taunted by images of the Doctor! Maybe he isn't really all that sure of himself! So, I now concede that the evidence is less than conclusive and irrefutable, but this timing remains highly probable, and I still maintain that there must be a pre-existing resistance to the idea for anybody doing serious dating work to give it very little or no consideration as has been the widespread case. Surely this is not just inertia from the two being originally transmitted successively in the same season? "I don't see how this affects whether or not someone can or can't tell that the office sen [sic] is very clearly at the pithead." It doesn't, not directly. It goes to the credibility of both Parkin (who was at first your only and specifics-less source for the existence of the April calendar) and the compiler of the linked-in chronology, who remains your only source to pinpoint the alleged location of "April." As for my reporting you to the moderators, today I received a message that it had been taken down because, according to that message, I had put it up at the wrong place and incorrectly formatted it (I followed the existing instructions as much to the letter as possible given their less than stellar clarity, especially re: format). Given this newest exchange, I won't follow the link given me to try again. We have a definite improvement here, and I repeat my opening sentiment, thank you for actually addressing the evidence. I do have one question, which I freely admit doesn't really have anything to do with our issues--and I do not intend this as criticism of you for making the mention--but your comment "yet another 'Liz Shaw's final story'" intrigues me, in an academic way. There is more than one way to take this. Do you mean that various fans have written her a story depicting her good-bye to the Doctor and UNIT, i.e., a formal, "on-stage" end of her run as his official companion, between Inferno and ...Autons, such as one in the Virgin/Missing Adventure novel The Scales of Injustice? She has made chronologically subsequent "guest appearances," starting with the BBC Books Past Doctor novel, Devil Goblins from Neptune, which still precedes Season 8, and another, whose title I forget but I think it was another V/MA, in which she joins #3 and Jo in a TARDIS trip to another planet (to say nothing about a much older Liz's adventures with P.R.O.B.E.). Again, this is strictly academic curiosity. Ted Watson 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)