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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about
television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the
style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular
BBCsoap operaEastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about
soap operas and
telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit
WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the
discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
Untitled
I am not sure whether the reference to the
Pulfrich effect is entirely correct as the Daily Telegraph of
27th October1993 (Media correspondent Jane Thynne) says "using new technology devised by Mr Terry Beard, the Californian scientist who perfected the
DTS digital sound system for ...
Jurassic Park, viewers without the glasses will be able to see a normal 2-D picture". Any comments?
DavidFarmbrough 10:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Thank you. There appears to be nothing on Wikipedia about Terry Beard at the time of writing, so in view of this and his work for DTS, perhaps a Terry Beard article is warranted.
DavidFarmbrough 10:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Canonicity
Regarding this sentence
Ultimately, the canonicity of this spin-off within the Doctor Who universe is unclear.
Yeah, but why does no-one worry about its canonicity within the EastEnders universe? I'll bet half of the EastEnders characters that appear in the "20 years in the future" segment (now more like 8) have been inadvertantly killed off by scriptwriters with a life who don't know every detail of the series... but I don't see any EastEnders fans chiming in with discussion about a spin-off novel that sees Arthur Fowler come back to life in 2009 as a zombie. Or whatever.
And assuming they're both canon, doesn't this imply that EastEnders and the Doctor Who universe are one and the same, and that Wendy Richards/Pauline Fowler is a new Doctor Who character?
Actually, going by the "soapiness" of some parts of the new series, I believe that this is really the case. :)
There was a debate on its 'Stenders canonity in the DWM editorial column some time ago (following an earlier discussion of its Doctor Who status). The editor insisted it was (mostly due to predicting Arthur's death), and the designer came up with examples of its continuity being all over the place. It was quite funny.
As to whether Doctor Who and EastEnders take place in the same universe, I think this is either going to be confirmed or denied in the finale of the current series...
Daibhid C 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Good grief, how can anyone even think this was canonical? Has anyone ever actually met someone who genuinely thinks this is a real episode of the series, because I don't think such a person exists, whatever Nathan Turner's intentions might have been before this was made. There wasn't any story to DIT, it was just a load of nonsensical cameos with a spinning camera to show off the 3D effect, and to top it all the viewers at home actually voted on the ending rather than the scriptwriters. The Fifth Doctor is stopped from escaping some monster in the park by three foot tall RAILINGS, he even says "Oh no! Railings!" and just stops. Does anyone think that Jim'll Fix It sketch was canonical? Or Jon Pertwee's appearance as the Doctor on Noel's House Party to promote DIT? Or that Blue Peter clip with the War Machine in it? Or the adverts for Prime computers? Or The Curse Of Fatal Death? All those have just as much claim to be canon as Dimensions In Time, but who would be sad enough to try and invent stupid reasons for them to be part of the whole "saga". The only reason anyone wanted this to be part of the real series was because there wasn't any new Who material being made back then at all, or even any prospect of new material being made. Fans really wanted Dark Dimensions and just couldn't accept that the series was totally dead at that point. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
212.146.47.250 (
talk •
contribs) 11:43, November 14, 2006 (UTC)
Most of what you say is true — but I have in fact met Doctor Who fans (on the
Outpost Gallifrey forums) who have argued that the story is canonical. Crap, but canonical. Since there is no official authority declaring what is and isn't canon in Doctor Who, at Wikipedia we can't make absolute declarations on the subject. Even though the vast majority of Doctor Who fans would be happy to pretend that "Dimensions in Time" never happened, it would be
original research to make a bold statement of its non-canonicity in the article. The current wording is about as far as we can push it. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I have edited this page to reflect the fact that the new series seemingly denies Dimensions in Time a place in canon, thanks to its EastEnders references, but the bit of me that really wants to pretend it's canon likes the fact that the EastEnders of the
Whoniverse is not the same as real EastEnders. My theory goes as follows,
Peggy Mitchell will not be conversing with a spirit of
Den Watts - a plot inspired by the ghosts that walk among us in Doctor Who's "real world". Therefore, I can now pretend that in Doctor Who, EastEnders is a soap, (devoid of any reference to Doctor Who), which has recreated the Who real life place of
Walford with its
Queen Vic pub and features a Who EastEnders Peggy Mitchell and a Who EastEnders Den Watts, neither of whom featured in the Who "real world" Walford depicted in Dimensions in Time. Naturally, this is original research, so cannot make the article, but it is a nice theory for those like me who want Dimensions in Time as canon. It's not that bad.
Wolf of Fenric 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)reply
...OK, so my contribution to this section of the page was a little sarcastic. But surely if we're stating as fact that the story is "preposterous", "makes little or no narrative sense" and is regarded with "(often intense) disfavour", isn't it only fair to acknowledge that the same is true (to pick two non-contentious examples) of Time and the Rani or The Twin Dilemma? (Alternatively, if the poor quality of those stories is not fact but opinion, then surely the same is true of Dimensions in Time?)
If perceived quality is your criterion for canon, then that's a shifting threshold, and the status of large swathes of Doctor Who is insecure.
Could be a parallel universe. That would explain why both shows have referred to each other as fiction, despite the crossovers.
212.50.191.46 (
talk) 09:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Quit the arguing! Both shows have mentioned each other, so Dimensions in Time is non-canonical to both shows.
Digifiend (
talk) 10:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)reply
A different approach would be to say that the Doctor Who programme which exists in the fictional Eastenders universe was one which didn't mention Eastenders and vice versa.
DavidFarmbrough (
talk) 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)reply
need clearing up...
'The Rani makes the mistake of capturing one companion while she is in the form of Romana'
...what the hell does that line from the article mean? That the Rani had Romana's form or...?
No, it was just the writer's silly way of saying "Well, since there was already a Time Lord in the computer, adding Romana (which was a mistake, The Rani meant to take a human) then, for some strange reason, The Doctor could overload the computer. Don't try to make sense of it all!--
151.203.162.36 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Daleks
The article says that the scene with the Daleks was ultimately never shot, yet unseen/unused (but not unshot) footage at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec22YS215Jk clearly has a Dalek in it at 6:27.
Xmoogle (
talk) 22:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Dimensions in Time. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I changed 'this is non-canon' to 'this is CONSIDERED non-canon', since canon is an infamously loaded term in Doctor Who --
171.33.193.136 (
talk) 07:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
It needs a cite one way or the other. And discussion of how it is treated is probably something for a "reception" section rather than lede.
GraemeLeggett (
talk) 09:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Dimensions in Time. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
All actors and crew gave their services especially for Children in Need, and waived their fees on the condition that Dimensions in Time would never be repeated or sold on home video for profit. For the same reason, the story has and never will appear as an extra on a DVD release.
I know that the thumbnail is unofficial, but this was the best example of a official-looking DVD cover (even though it is fan-made)
Foxx247 (
talk) 11:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
If someone is able to crop the current image so that it just says Dimensions in Time I would be extremely grateful.
MarvelMovieFan (
talk) 22:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
The image concerned,
File:Dimensions in Time logo.jpg, has a bogus claim of "own work" and is almost certainly a copyright violation, as notified in the section above. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Canon?
I think there should be a section explaining the different arguments for and against Dimensions in Time being canon to
Doctor Who.
Foxx247 (
talk) 00:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply