Talk:List of Doctor Who items

Creation

This article was created in response to the VFD debate on the Psychic paper article: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Psychic paper. Please feel free to expand it as you see fit, or move it to an article with a better name. Tim! (talk) 07:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it be better at List of Doctor Who items, to be consistent with all the other Doctor Who lists? —Josiah Rowe 05:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll let someone else do it, because I'm on a self imposed "No page moves" thing at the moment.--Sean Black | Talk 05:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed all the links in the main namespace as well. (By the way, why no page moves? Were you naughty?) —Josiah Rowe 06:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I needed to find out what the "Warning! This can be a drastic change..." text was, and I used George W. Bush as an example (I'd been told it was protected from moving). Then, my hand slipped, and... you know. Actually, look at User talk:Linuxbeak#Bush, Page-moves, and idiocy to see me freaking out. I felt really guilty.--Sean Black | Talk 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Culling

Fair warning: I'm going to cull this page some time soon now, as it's slowly degenerating into the worst depths of fancruft. Some bits like cricket ball, badge and anti-radiation pills are just too generic and trivial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at it myself. Feel free to continue to hack it to bits :).--Sean|Black 23:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you have a tendency to overdo the culling. A mere eight minutes after I entered the information about Tom Baker's annoyance about the destruction of the scarf in Peter Davison's first episode (I was a witness to the conversation), you deleted it.

I strongly disagree with your notion that this is "unnecessary trivia". Given the overwhelming association of the scarf with Baker's version of the character, his feeling on the subject is quite relevant.

Davidkevin 07:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more relevant to Castrovalva, as it's not really about the item itself, per se. I've moved it there, but you really need a citation for it; personal knowledge falls under original research, unfortunately, since it's not independently verifiable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think recorder should be re-instated as it is more notable than many of the items in the list - it was central in The Three Doctors. Tim! (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the premise of that culling, although well intentioned, leads to consequences outside of the Doctor Who narrative. Funny names for common items, or unexpected uses for common items, (ie a field gravitation device for a yo yo) is part of the Doctor Who story line. It would be as taking out the celery entry, which, while commonplace I'll grant you, really ignores it's role in defining the 5th doctor's character. Jahenderson

• While I'm on the subject, I think the FASA Doctor Who material, while certainly non-cannonical if they're taking liberties outside of broadcast, should still be presented, rather than summarily deleted. Certainly it should be tagged as such, but we allow material in books through (think about Lungbarrow), and I believe the people in the 1985 FASA were in pretty close consultation with the scriptwriters. In any event - there's my plea. Please don't delete the FASA stuff, especially when I've gone through the trouble to make sure it's rephrased to the point where it couldn't reasonably be charged with plagarism. Jahenderson

Virtually nobody takes the FASA material as canonical - really. And it's been contradicted by so much of the licensed fiction since them as to make them totally unuseful. If you want to set out an entire article just about the FASA material, perhaps, but in my view, to place them within the rest and then have to qualify them out of existence would lead to much confusion. And as far as I know the FASA people were not in any kind of close consultation with the production team; they were fans, and what they couldn't extrapolate from the series they just made up. If you have any cites to the contrary, though, feel free to present them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At the least, it seems to be no more or less confusing than any of the rest of the published spinoff books about the series. Moreover, they seemed to hew very closely to the broadcast narrative. Essentially what I'm saying is this: it's a reader's choice on how much weight they chose to give to the FASA people. Declaring it non-cannonical, and therefore contraband and to be omitted on sight, seems not inkeeping with the way the rest of the Doctor Who material has been treated. Moreover, the items we're debating about are things that (from my recollection) were directly addressed in the broadcast, and faithfully rendered in the 1985 FASA. I'm thinking about the yo yo, the dynatrope, and the dalekium. So, they would be cannonical, although I don't necessarily agree that that should be the standard. Thanks, btw, for correcting the 5th doctor~4th doctor error on my part with the yo yo.Jahenderson

Whomobile Ownership

Precisely when did the Whomobile become Jon Pertwee's property? I had read that it was built for him from the first, and added that it was his property. That was edited to that it became his property. Which was it?

Davidkevin 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was actually under the opposite impression, but I did some checking and you're correct. It was specially commissioned by Pertwee. I'll switch it back, with a cite. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort in clarifying this.

Davidkevin 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it is his property as I saw it in a museum in Wales when I was 5! I suppose he could have loaned it... Thetictocmonkey 13:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

New Superphone Upgrade

As of Rise of the Cybermen (and possibly earlier, someone else could clarify) Rose's phone has become a Samsung D500 (or similar model, but definitely Samsung.) - Should the Superpphone information be updated to reflect this, or is it not clear that this new phone has the same "Super" upgrade as applied to the 2005 series phone? The_B 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added that the Nokia has been replaced by the Samsung but I haven't mentioned if it is still a Superphone or not because we don't yet. GracieLizzie 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this now may become irrelevant as Mickey has since taken Rose's phone in The Age of Steel The_B 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Torchwood/Psychic Paper

It wasnt quite clear to me how their "training" enables them to not be fooled. J.J. Popplewick 09:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's never explained but the members of Torchwood are immune to psychic paper(refrence: "Army of Ghosts") people with strong minds(vs weak-minded individuals) can also be immune to psychic paper(ex: William Shakespeare in"The Shakespeare Code") much like the TARDIS if people know about it then the TARDIS's perception filter won't work on them. If people know about psychic paper then they know what it does. Andy5421 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Army of Ghost/Doomsdsy

Should we add all the various Torchwood Institute paraphernalia? Anti-weight clamps, interdimensional transporters, particle gun, ghost shift machine... etc. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

possibly if it's ussed in Doctor Who (ie: ghost shift machine anti-weight clamps etc) Andy5421 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sonic lance

I removed this from the sonic lance entry:

It was seen again later in the serial Robot as a small add-on to the Doctor's sonic screwdriver enabling him to cut through locks.

1. Was that tool called a sonic lance on screen? I thought the term was invented for Attack of the Cybermen.
2. Robot was earlier, not later. (Attack of the Cybermen was the previous referent.)

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

dalek tommy guns?

should we add the dalek tommy guns to this article?--Lerdthenerd 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

void ship

void ship redirects here but there is no mention of it.

Also, didn't the Sixth Doctor also use that umbrella? 67.5.157.76 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sixth Doctor's was a different, multi-coloured one.

The void ship can be found at List of Doctor Who vehicles. Someone with more time than me needs to sort out the links and redirects. Gwinva 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

timey wimey device

this item appears in Blink (Doctor Who) should we add it to this article.--Lerdthenerd 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a "Timey-Wimey Detector" I have added an image as well to it. Yes it should be there since it is an important item for the doctor to use(plot-wise). Andy5421 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vorpal penknife

I think, from context, it seems very likely the Doctor's kidding and this does not exist. Daibhid C 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tense and capitalisation

I've just redone a number of entries to bring them fully into present tense, as is generally preferred in describing fiction in Wikipedia. Some entries are currently past tense, some present tense, and some are both. Before I do much more work making it consistent, I just want to make sure nobody is wildly opposed to my doing so. Thanks! Also, I'd like to remind people that we don't capitalize "the" in "the Master" and "the Doctor", except at the beginning of the sentence. Oh, and if I fail to use a British spelling, please feel free to fix it. Thanks again! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-regeneration gun

Should this really be here, given that it's not a real device, was invented by Martha as a diversion and certainly didn't do what she said it would do?

Ah, but we saw it. It physically existed, even if its function was to deceive rather than to kill. This should probably be made clearer in the entry, but as an object that played an important role in a key episode, it should be listed IMO. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Past_Doctors.jpg

Just to let people know that the above image, used in this article, has been nominated for deletion. Anyone wishing to offer their opinions can see the discussion here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

sonic lipstick- canon?

I'm not sure whether the sonic lipstick is canon. IMO, it is daft and I know this is irelevant, but surely this supports the "not canon" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoviangeekdude (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Is it to do with some change you want to make to this article? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see The Sarah Jane Adventures, and therefore the sonic lipstick is canon, but I agree about the sonic lipstick probably shouldn't be listed here (It has never appeared in Doctor Who), but it's not much of a strech to keep it here for now. Black Dalek 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)).

I've removed it for the time being. There ought to be sufficient space in the SJA articles to cover it without making any of them too long. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC, it made a brief appearance in 'Journey's End (Doctor Who)' When Sarah Jane escaped from the Reality Bomb testing room on the crucible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Marcus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

yup she did use it to unlock a door and escape before the test detonation of the Reality Bomb, so yes it is canon in that it was used in DW(albeit by Sarah Jane and only once)it was given to SJ by the Doctor(hidden inside K-9)Andy5421

Bananas!!!! - Really?

Should this article really include bananas? - I don't think it is neccesary. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Should it really include jelly babies? It's a big enough running joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jelly babies, yes because the Fourth Doctor(Tom Baker) used them alot and in the "Sound of Drums" the Master makes a visual refrence to it by offering Lucy Saxon(his wife/human companion) a Jelly Baby. As for the banana, it was a one time use and was a throw-away gag Andy5421 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Bananas were referenced in The Empty Child, The Doctor Dances, and The Girl in the Fireplace. It is of about as much significance as the satsuma references in Christmas Invasion and Attack of the Graske, that is to say, not much.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jefro77 Andy5421 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jelly Babies are also in the Doctor Who Movie - Sylvester McCoy eats them at the start (although it could have been PM not sure!) - Thetictocmonkey 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I would personally argue against the inclusion of Jelly Babies and bananas in this article. While they are both frequently referenced, neither one is an item unique to the Whoniverse. That would be like including chips because Rose and the Doctor mention eating chips several times, or beans on toast, because the ninth doctor frequently refers to beans on toast when talking about how humans go about their lives. It makes no sense to include either of them in this article. 71.62.249.44 (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doctors severed hand.jpg

Image:Doctors severed hand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationale provided for this image. If someone else wants to check the other images on this page to see if they've got appropriate rationales, that would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dalek human guns.jpg

Image:Dalek human guns.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done this one too, but I'd really rather not do all the rationales (hint, hint). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hint taken. I've done five, and my computer wants to crash now. Hope you don't mind: I cribbed my FURs from yours! --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an FUR boilerplate text file if anyone wants to see it let me know i may post it on my talk or profile page. Andy5421 (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Proclamation

Is someone going to recreate that entry here then? The original page has gone away. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as we know, the Shadow Proclamation is not an "item." It may be a decree, a treaty, an agreement, a group, a galactic legal authority or some combination thereof, but we don't know if it's an actual object (i.e. on a piece of paper on some planet somewhere). --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Shadow Proclamation is like an intergalactic authority with laws governing the entire Universe, with it's own hired police force(the Judoon) The Shadow Proclamation made it's debut in "The Stolen Earth". It is mentioned by the Ninth Doctor in "Rose" when talking to the Nestine Consciousness(Autons). In "The Christmas Invasion" Rose tries to act tough and spout "political-talk" to the Sycorax to get them to leave, she mentions The Shadow Proclamation. Andy5421 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pocket Franestan

I recall a reference to a device named a Pocket Franestan in relation to The Doctor but I don't have a reference or context for it. Wondering if anyone has heard of it? The Pocket Franestan was described as a device that could be used to extricate oneself from any difficult situation, much like the Sonic Screwdriver. Daveymg (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Progenation Machine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into List of Doctor Who items -- GracieLizzie (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose a merge of Progenation Machine back into this article. It's shown up in all of one episode, and while certainly notable enough for a mention here; not notable enough for an article of it's own. --GracieLizzie (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Perfect for this list, not for a separate article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. No business being in a standalone article. Radagast (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No contest, Merge! No wait, that my arctile. Wait a while, maybe some info will come in. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge. An artifact which features in only one episode is no sonic screwdriver. --FOo (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great Key / Rod of Rassilon

The entries for the Great Key, the Rod of Rassilon, and the De-mat gun are very confusing. If there a way to make this more clear? Asta2500 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Past doctors.jpg

The image Image:Past doctors.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dalek-enhanced Thompson Submachine Guns

This is most likely me being a pedant but were they really inferior? Remember that the Daleks had their armour casing while the Dalek Humans were completely unarmoured, so calling them inferior is like calling one AK-47 inferior to another as one is trying to destroy a tank while the other is being used against a human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Marcus (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Glove of Rassilon

who deleted it? I made that article thank you! Andy5421 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

hmm i can see why(the Wiki coding I used) instead of deleting the whole thing just correct it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy5421 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, I moved it (to 'President's gauntlet'). Nowhere is it called "Glove of Rassilon". Even if the president is literally Rassilon, it still doesn't mean that everything Rassilon might happen to use is automatically the [Object] of Rassilon. If you can think of a better name that is supported by some source, go ahead. In the script, it is cited as "his gauntlet" in reference to "the President", not "Rassilon", and is never called "Glove of Rassilon".--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave it be. Andy5421 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

First Doctor and perhaps first item, after the TARDIS

What about the Fault Detector? That was maybe the first item ever used. It was on the wall of the TARDIS, and showed a number telling where the problem was.Mzk1 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What Episode was it in? Maybe I can find it. Andy5421 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the Episode. It's "The Daleks" story arc. Fisrt Episode: "The Dead Planet" Susan uses it to detect that something is missing from the TARDIS(which the Doctor purposely took out). I'll watch the episode and get caps of the item(s) Andy5421 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Record of Rassilon

added today. Any other info would be great. Andy5421 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Vortex Manipulator, Pt. 1

Its final appearance (to date) reveals something much more important than the fact it's indestructible. It reveals that it once again works, despite being disabled by the Doctor. Can the article explain how it works again instead of ignoring it? -109.64.199.102 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

we don't know if the one Riversong uses is Jacks or not, wait and see--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to wait and see. River Song's vortex manipulator was "fresh off the wrist of a handsome Time Agent". Jack hasn't been a Time Agent since before the events of The Empty Child.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

chameleon circuit

in the main doctor who article his TARDIS is said to be modelled after a 1950 British police box(preface, 4th par.), whereas here it is said to be of the 60's. can anyone tell which is correct?

Alenros (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They were used during both time periods. --UserJDalek 04:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

cloister bell

Removed the statement "In The God Complex, the Cloister bell is shown as the Doctor's deepest fear (due to the imminent destruction of the TARDIS implication)." While the cloister bell is heard when the doctor opens his door in the hotel, there is no evidence to suggest that the bell itself was his greatest fear, nor that the reasoning of it being his greatest fear "due to the imminent destruction of the TARDIS implication", is anything other than an assumption on the part of an editor. In fact, his statement upon opening the door of "Of course, who else?", implies that his greatest fear is a person. TDiNardo (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Searching for the Cloister Bell brings you here, but there doesn't seem to be an entry for it, at least under C where you'd expect it. The article is displayed starting with C, and searching it for Cloister Bell turns up nothing. I don't know enough about the item to create the entry, but somebody needs to. JDZeff (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Vortex Manipulator, Pt. 2

In the Wikipedia article on the time vortex, it states that traveling through the time vortex is deadly unless one is in a vehicle like the TARDIS. When Captain Jack Harkness held on to the outside of the TARDIS as it traveled, he died though because he was immortal, he came back to life.

So, how are time agents and time lords (& humans since I believe Martha used one, too) able to survive travel through at time vortex using a vortex manipulator attached to their wrist? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Books

These should be added but when I add them they end up being deleted:

Melody Malone: Private Detective in Old New York Town

A book the Doctor read in The Angels Take Manhattan. It revealed what would happen to the Doctor and his companions in the episode, and was written by River Song later in the episode. The BBC made it into a purchasable ebook called The Angel's Kiss: A Melody Malone Mystery, but the book does not contain the chapter revealing Amy Pond's departure and the titles for each chapter, and is a prequel the the episode instead of a modified version to it.

Summer Falls

It is a book written by Amelia Williams. It was read by Clara Oswald in The Bells of Saint John. The BBC made the same book a purchasable ebook. .

The Journal of Impossible Things is in this list why not the two most resent be added?

IMO, these are more pertinent to merchandise than to Doctor Who items. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Its just there are two versions of each, the one screen and off screen, and they are different from the books sold by BBC. The first was a central theme in The Angels Take Manhattan and has a different title and chapters then the one sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.17.136 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Plastic celery?

The celery worn by Peter Davison was artificial, but wasn’t plastic; it was made of fabric and foam, and sewn and folded to look like celery. This I believe is what was sold at auction, not a plastic stick, as mentioned in the article. Jock123 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Confession dial

Surely needs an entry? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Bold proposal to trim

This article has a number of problems: it is too often written from an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective; it rarely meets WP:RS criteria of inline citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources; and the whole things appears to fall foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What about cutting it down to focus on the important material? I suggest as a rule of thumb that items that only appear in one story and have no secondary source coverage should go. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of feedback either way, I'll start trimming. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

"Trilogic game" redirects here, even though there's no mention of it anywhere in the article. Presumably there are a lot of other redirects that need sorting as well, although I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to feel confident sorting it out myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.74.217 (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed that one, changing it to re-direct to The Celestial Toymaker. Re-directs are a bit fiddly if you're newer to Wikipedia! If you see any others, feel free to add them here and I'll try to tidy them up. Re-directs to relevant stories seem more appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are others. "Transmat" is linked to from "Bad Wolf", for example. You may be able to rectify this using the "What links here" link in the margin. 89.241.141.180 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Gravity Globe" is linked to this page from the "The Time of Angels" page, too. Chronque (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the link, as far as I can see the gravity globe was only mentioned in one two-part episode, which is likely why it was removed from this page. Pastychomper (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)