Talk:2009

DWF closure - link rationale
Just for the record I chose to use a TrekBBS forum link to cite the announcement of the closure of the Doctor Who Forum and Outpost Gallifrey since the original DWF and OG announcement pages will no longer be accessible as of 31 July, making them invalid as citation sources. Trek BBS is likely to survive for awhile yet, and they quote the announcement in full. 23skidoo 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Children of Earth
Children of Earth appears to be set in September 2009, any reason this is not mentioned? HollyM 12:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because every Doctor Who/Torchwood/Sarah Jane Adventures episode is set a year past transmission date, since the Doctor dropped off Rose in 2006, after a year missing in the 2005 episode Aliens of London, so Children of Earth broadcast in 2009 would be set in 2010. MercM

But a newspaper in Part Two of COE clearly reads "September 2009".


 * So? You base the entire timeline on one newspaper that was probably wrong anyway, every episode in the present is based one year after transmission date because in Aliens of London, the Doctor dropped Rose off in 2006 instead of 2005 (the transmission date), every Doctor Who/Torchwood/SJA episode is set one year ahead of transmission date and are set in order (so by this rule created by RTD, Children of Earth is set after Planet of the Dead in 2010.), RTD does not make every prop so how can he decide the date? I am getting sick and tired of having to change the date based on someone going "Oh well, it was on some newspaper". Plus, the date would be too soon after the Dalek invasion, yet nobody happened to mention on the news either the Dalek invasion or the other alien incidents so it must have been set afterward. MercM


 * I've changed my mind on this again, RTD is not stupid, he clearly meant to put September 2009, mainly because it is some time after Journey's End in early 2009. Therefore, it is not a continuity error and should be included. The thing with Donna saying about The Doctor saving the world in 2008 could be referring to any of the times he did so in that year. Children of Earth takes place months after TW Series 2 (Jan-Feb 09), DW Series 4 (Feb- Mar 09) and SJA Series 2 (Summer/late Summer 09). Whoniverse93 22:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 or 2010!
I'm adding this simply so we can stop changing this from 2009 to 2010 or from 2010 to 2009. Reply underneath this saying what date you believe it is set in - 2009 or 2010? Whichever one comes out on top, we should respect the vote and leave it as is. Whoniverse93 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 2009 gets my vote, as it was mentioned in the newspaper, I believe it takes place at least 7 months from Exit Wounds, 5 months from Journey's End and at most 2 months after Enemy of the Bane. Whoniverse93 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For more detailed discussion see Talk:Series_3_(Torchwood) and also Forum:Timeline Clarification Questions and Forum:"Children of Earth" takes place in late 2009: confirm/deny? for further discussions concerning the dating of Children of Earth. 2009 is when it takes place as the evidence all points towards that date. --Tangerineduel 07:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 2010 gets my vote as every story of Doctor Who/Torchwood and SJA is set one year from actual transmission date. Normally every Doctor Who series goes from March to May, the normal months in which it is transmitted, so I believe that Planet of the Dead was set in April 2010 and Children of Earth in September 2010, with the events of Series 4 taking place in 2009, 3 in 2008, 2 in 2007 and 1 in 2005/2006. Plus I base my vote on the fact that every present time story is in chronological order, so CoE comes after PotD in 2010. MercM


 * This isn't about voting this is about providing proof. Not working on supposition or precedents. --Tangerineduel 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And, half the Doctor Who universe has been set on precedents, the precedent of regeneration, the precedent of each year being one after the other, the precedent of co-ordination between series' and quite frankly as an Admin you should be taking an impartial side. MercM


 * Wow, seems like this is becoming an emotional issue. Looking objectively, it does seem that we have on-screen evidence which states that the story takes place in 2009 (someone referenced Rhys' comment that 1965 was 44 years ago, for example). The only counter-argument I've seen is that some previous stories were set one year later than they were broadcast (although in some of those cases, I don't think we see any clearly-established evidence of that in those stories...but that's another debate). So if it's a matter of clear evidence (newspaper date being the clearest example) versus "well, that's the way they usually do it", then logically the clear evidence has to prevail. Spreee 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Spreee


 * I have concrete evidence, the newspaper said Wednesday on Day Two, so Day Five would be a Saturday; why would children be on school on a Saturday? This proves that the newspaper's evidence for 2009 is null and void MercM
 * Not really. The newspaper did say Wednesday, yes, and that would indeed make Day Five a Saturday. The best explanation I've heard for why the children would be in school is simply that the government ordered them to be (which they did, for their own ulterior motives of course). However, even if one discounts the day of the week as a misprint, that still doesn't mean we just pretend the newspaper didn't exist. The year being wrong would have to be rationalized as another misprint, which seems unlikely. But just for fun, let's say we ignore the newspaper entirely. And, just for more fun, let's ignore Rhys' comment about 1965 being 44 years ago. There's still no evidence that I'm aware of to suggest it's 2010. At best, all of that fun ignoring of evidence would still only leave us with no clearly-established year. Spreee 20:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Spreee