Talk:The Hand of Fear

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Episode coverage 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Why is the Target novelisation succeeding story not The Deadly Assassin?

The books weren't published in televised order. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this once before after a Google serach and a scan of my books showed nothing. I support removing it again because it seems totally unverifiable, and even if it were verifiable, it hardly seems all that notable... many lines of dialouge have become fairly infamous (No not the mind probe!, for instance).--Sean Black ^(talk) 21:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't seem verifiable or notable at the moment. I've just dropped a note at User talk:Davidkevin, who put it in most recently. Let's give him a few days to see if he can find anything to back it up before we delete it — who knows, perhaps there's an entire essay somewhere on the use of "Eldrad must live" as a password at 1980s conventions! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an oral joke, not a printed one, as the point of the joke is lost in print.

You guys win, it gets tossed down the Memory Hole even though I know it to be a fact from personal experience and observation.

Davidkevin 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, see, "personal experience and observation" cannot be used as sources under any circumstances—See Wikipedia:No original research.--Sean Black ^(talk) 19:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping into this five years late! In the DVD documentary 'Changing Time' Liz Sladen comments that this is a catchphrase that she was often asked to say at conventions. So while it may still not be notable, it could actually be cited.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who online have been told by there contact at 2|entertain that this story is being released on DVD. This is probably because this was Sarah Jane Smith's last episode until School Reunion, with the exception of The Five Doctors and Dimensions in Time. No special features have been revealed yet. It's release date is 24th July

Is Sladen still the longest serving? PMA 08:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the longest serving companion was Jamie McCrimmon 12thdoctor 07:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. In terms of continuous appearances (and not guest appearances years later) it's Sarah Jane Smith: December 1973-October 1976. Jamie McCrimmon: December 1966-June 1969. Tegan Jovanka: February 1981-February 1984. 2A0A:EF40:1267:7101:D1E6:A72D:8A6:26D6 (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Shop says [here] that the DVD will be released on July 24, as does DWM. However, the article says July 31. Should this be changed? -- Jawr256 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bought it yesterday so yes. ;) Morwen - Talk 12:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]