Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New series

The article says the next series starts on 5 April, and then cites a reference which states 31 March. Can somebody who knows the correct date amend this, to either change the date or the reference? Richard75 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange change

FYI, I reverted this edit by DW Celt from earlier tonight. Not sure what it was about - no edit summary or discussion that I could see, and it seemed to be a major revert/re-edit. If there was a discussion somewhere, apologies, but otherwise... Anyone else know what this was about? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I read some of it which appeared to be pure hoax. WP:EUI perhaps? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like testing and just sort of odd. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but it looks just the same as other previous edits. Could someone tell me if I'm missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.85.33 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Overall Story Titles for New Series Doctor Who Stories?

I note that, whenever a new series 2- or 3-parter is referred to in text, it is always "Aliens of London/World War Three" or "Human Nature/The Family of Blood". I also note that we do not refer to William Hartnell stories not titled on screen as "The Edge of Destruction/The Brink of Disaster" or "The Powerful Enemy/Desperate Measures". From this, I conclude that there should be agreed titles for all New Series Doctor Who stories. My suggestions are as follows:

"Aliens of London/World War Three" - Aliens of London

"The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" - The Empty Child (that's hardly contested)

"Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways" - The Parting of the Ways

"Rise of the Cybermen/THe Age of Steel" - Rise of the Cybermen

"The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit" - The Satan Pit

"Army of Ghosts/Doomsday" - Doomsday

"Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks" - Evolution of the Daleks

"Human Nature/The Family of Blood" - Human Nature (although, if we wanted to distinguish from the novel, then "The Family of Blood")

"Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords" - Last of the Time Lords.

Please post your suggestions. 210.4.230.240 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)youdidntreadthis

The trouble is they are just that - suggestions. The two part stories are not referred to by one singular episode title - its always the two put together. Even your suggestions are inconsistent, in some cases you choose the first ep for its overall title, in some cases you choose the last. We just have to accept that the new series has individual episode titles for multi-parters and are referred to by their dual titles, whereas the original series stories have overall titles. Mmm commentaries (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would cause more disruption than anything; attractive, in a sense, though the proposal is, its only merit would seem to be brevity. Wikipedia is not paper, so there is little overhead to be saved by conflating titles; also, there are several places in related articles where a single episode, rather than a story sub-arc, is referred to, e.g. "in (episode) Martha is shown to be ...". Conflation would diffuse this information and we would risk confusing our readers. My preference would be to leave things as they are. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there is a precedent (the Hartnell episodes and Noel Clarke only knowing Aliens of London/World War Three by one title in an interview), presently there isn't enough externally-documented information (such as DWM) to avoid original research. DonQuixote (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the new series two/three parters and the old series serials, is that even the BBC now recognise the old serials as one title. I.e; The first seven part Dalek serial is now simply known as 'The Daleks' as oppose to The Dead Planet/The Survivors/The Escape/The Ambush/The Expedition/The Ordeal/The Rescue. Whereas the new series two/three parters are still recognised by the BBC as Aliens of London/World War Three ect... Well thats my point of view anyway! :-) TheProf - T / C 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aliens of World War Three, The Empty Doctor Dances with a Child, Parting Ways with the Bad Wolf, Rise of the Age of Steel, The Satan Pit on the Impossible Planet, Army of Doomsday Ghosts, The Daleks Evolve, In Manhattan!, The Human Nature of Blood and The Last of the Time Lords Utopian Sound of Drums. Seriously, though? It just isn't feasible. Any naming system would be inconsistent and confusing to anyone not part of this conversation. Part One/Part Two works fine, and doesn't cause confusion between the individual episodes and the entirety of the two parters. \\Aeron\\talk 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention under the naming system when we say "X first appeared in Doomsday" do we mean "X first appeared Army of Ghosts/Doomsday" or "X first appeared in the episode Doomsday"

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

McCoy & McGann's official tenure time

We've had a bit of an edit war on this. The BBC's official site lists McCoy's tenure as "1987-1996", while McGann is listed as "1996". It seems to me that this is inconsistent, and that for accuracy, we should be consistent here, and either list them as the actual time of their appearance ––in which case McCoy should be listed (as he was before) as "1987-1989 & 1996", or list them with a timeline in which they were considered the "official" Doctor, in which case, McGann would be "1996-2004". --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is first and last appearence (excluding multiple doctor returns).

That would put McCoy as 1987 - 1996 and McGann as 1996.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but if we took that "first and last appearance" rule and applied it consistently, you'd have lots of overlap, because that would have to include the appearances in crossover episodes, such as The Five Doctors, The Two Doctors, etc. Patrick Troughton, for example, would be listed as "1966-1985". I think the best course here is to keep it as it was and list McCoy's 1996 appearance as a separate "& 1996" if at all. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hense the words "excluding multiple doctor returns"

Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence the words "applied it consistently"--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Duggy here. Firstly we are listing the dates that the actor appeared as the Doctor in the officially canon TV series (not including guest appearances as the Doctor in a multi-doc adventure.). Secondly we have to take the dating as given by the official BBC source as it stands. If the BBC state on the Doctor Who web pages that McCoy or McGann was the Doctor during those dates then surely that is as official as can be and not open to interpretation? Deckchair (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that matter it depends. If you're saying "Official" and citing the BBC, then sure. Otherwise as long as it isn't original research and is citable, other methods can be used...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's misleading to say that McCoy was the Doctor continuously for 9 years, when in fact it was only 2 years, followed by a 7 year gap and a small appearance in the TV movie. To someone not familiar with the program, this tells a very different story, and the McCoy gap is unique among the history of the series. Regardless of how the BBC lists it on their site, it's clear from nearly infinite sources that he did not appear continuously during this time, and it should be the goal of this article to be as accurate as possible - not to mimic what the BBC tells us is the "official timeline". --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, according the the BBC, Doctor Who wasn't cancelled, it was just not in production during those years. So, technically, the BBC can say whatever they want about McCoy's tenure. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The way the BBC presents the "facts" about the series can't necessarily be considered absolute truth. Otherwise, we'd just let them write this article. :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the whole point of references and citations is to have verifiable references for specific claims. The listing of McCoy as lasting through 1996 and McGann as 1996 *only* is properly cited to the BBC's official site - as are all the other listings, so the listing *is* consistently applied. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that could be cited that reference exactly when Sylvester McCoy appeared as the Doctor, and when he didn't. The idea that the BBC could be the only "proper" source for this is ludicrous. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Doesn't make it a fact. However, an official source should take precedence over any others, in *my* opinion - and apparently in a few other editors opinions as well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an official source should take precedence in most cases, but not when it clearly distorts the reality. We all know that Sylvester McCoy did not appear as the Doctor in the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and to claim otherwise in this article is false and misleading. The way this reads right now, McCoy had a longer tenure as the Doctor than any other actor (9 years vs. Tom Baker's 7), and that's simply not true. The purpose of this article, as any Wikipedia article, is to present the facts in an unbiased a manner as possible. I stand by what I said before - the BBC should not be the *only* resource for this information, especially when it's false or biased. Numerous other sources (not to mention anyone who was alive during that time) demonstrate McCoy's tenure as the Doctor as having a "break" between 1989 and 1996. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it distorts reality depends on what you mean by "tenure". If you mean tenure as in "appearing onscreen", then you're right. If you mean "tenure" as in "holding the rôle for any projects that may come up, including just to regenerate into the next guy"...well, that's the BBC's position. If you like, we can clarify between "tenure" vs "onscreen appearances". DonQuixote (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's get past the semantics of using "tenure" because that's really not relevant - sorry if I introduced that word to the discussion. The article currently says "Seventh Doctor, played by Sylvester McCoy (1987–1996)" which, as I stated before is simply not true; The character of "The Doctor" was not "played by" Sylvester McCoy during that entire range of years. If everybody else thinks these listings should be some statement on who was the "official" Doctor during this break in the series, then the wording needs to change - because it's simply not accurate as it is stated. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not have "(1987–1996, although there was no new material between 1990 and 1995)"-that's far too wordy. "(1987-1989, 1996)" is what it was before, is the simplest and is accurate.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what purpose it serves except to try to mimic what the BBC has on their site in some way. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the official site which states that McCoy was the Doctor between 1987 -1996 Deckchair (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this would be the encyclopedia that seeks to be factually accurate. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And the BBC site is inaccurate how? McCoy appeared on screen as the Doctor between 1987 & 1996 and was the only actor to play the role on screen in oifficial productions during these dates until replaced by McGann. Maybe you dont like it, but it is not inaccurate and as the official site it take precedence over what you may prefer to be the case. Deckchair (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1987-1996 suggests McCoy played the role for 9 straight years (longer than Tom Baker) which is obviously not the case, so it is inaccurate.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The BBC site IS inaccurate. This has nothing to do with preferences or what I like. Encyclopedia. Facts. End of story. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, no other actor played the doctor on screen between these dates. Secondly the correct use of references and citations means that we have a verifiable reference for this claim. The listing shows that McCoy lasted from 1987 through to 1996 and is a properly cited claim from the BBC's official site. THe BBC are the producers, copywrite holders etc. and in a position to make a statement that can be taken as facts. A listing showing McCoy as doctor between 1987 to 1996 is properly applied as it comes from a verifiable source. If you believe strongly enough that the BBC are incorrect in their claim then please provide a verifiable claim from an official source. Alternatively contact the BBC and point out their error Deckchair (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC's purpose is different. They may have any number of reasons or agendas for listing it that way (and it's inconsistent - see my last revision to the reference). But the ONLY purpose of this article is to be accurate and informative. Also, there's a specific context listed in this article next to that info. The bottom line is that this article simply cannot claim that McCoy was continuously performing as the Doctor for 9 years. Do you reallllly need to see some references to back that up? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but i feel you last argument is speculative. Stating that "they may have any number of reasons" also begs the retort that the use of "may" is speculation. No-one is stating that McCoy was continuously performing as the Doctor for 9 years. We are simply reflecting the fact that McCoy was the doctor between 1987 & 1996 with a hiatus inbetween as has been shown on the official BBC site. Also your cite only showed the series / programmes that McCoy appeared in before the break so is extremley inacurate - you forgot to add a link the the TV movie which shows that the Doctor regenerated (and the actors changed to reflect this) Deckchair (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you ARE suggesting -- check that, openly stating -- that McCoy played continuously for those years when you put 1987-1996 after "Seventh Doctor, played by Sylvester McCoy". That's NOT TRUE. I don't care if your source is the Queen of England. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shubop... here. Let me cite some examples. There is a videotaped interview of Patrick McGoohan (from Canadian TV, 1977) in which he states that he did "54" episodes of Danger Man, a UK spy programme (or two, but that's another debate) in which he starred. However, there is no reasonable, reality-based way to get a count of 54, no matter how you break down the two runs and the various seasons, yet McGoohan (the star, and he directed a few episodes as well) said it. That's a first hand source, and it is irrefutably wrong. There have been a significant number of authoritative television reference books which have flatly stated that one of the actresses who played Catwoman on the 1960s Batman TV programme was "Lee Ann Meriwether," but this is doubly wrong. While "Ann" is her legal middle name, she hadn't used it in her professional billing since the 1950s (perhaps not since her reign as Miss America), and her sole appearance as that villainess was in a big-screen spin-off, which was not an episode compilation but an original, all-new feature film (I fully intend to do something about her being listed flatly as "Catwoman #2" on the template for that series, as well as check the three related articles to that point). Finally, the Wiki-article The Green Hornet, attributed a statement to the developer/original writer of the NOW Comics version of that property, Ron Fortier, that the owner, The Green Hornet, Inc., not liking his (along with artist Jeff Butler) making the modern-era version of the character Kato a woman led to the comic being cancelled. An examination of those comic books themselves proves conclusively that this didn't happen; the character was quickly pulled and replaced with "the Bruce Lee Kato" (assistant editor Diane Piron's words on the occasion; see those articles for the full cite), and the series ran until the company ceased operations, nearly five years later. Admittedly, there was no citation for Fortier's alleged claim, but the existence of one would not have made me the least bit hesitant in replacing the passage with the accurate account anyway. A good, even official (and Danger Man star/director McGoohan and Green Hornet comic book developer/original writer Fortier being first-hand are virtually official), source is not above being challenged, not if "the purpose of this article is to be accurate and informative," as Shubop... said and no one disputed. McCoy was demonstrably not canon-active between 1989 and 1996, and so should not be listed as being the Doctor through that period. Ted Watson (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources can be challenged, and in many cases should be, but at the moment Shubop has not come up with a credible alternative citation and the comments on not caring what the source is only seems to show a petulant manner towards anything which does not tally with his/her view of things. Obviously if someone came up with a cast iron claim from the most impeccable of sources this would still not be good enough as it does not fit shubops personal universe. I accept your points Tbrittreid but the retorts and edits made by others were just not up to scratch. My point has been that the cite i gave was an excellent source under wikipedia rules and this source has been pooh-poohed as "just wrong" Deckchair (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is wrong. At least in the context you're trying to use it in. If the article listed time periods over which each were considered to be "The Official Doctor whose images were licensed as the face of the Doctor Who brand and used for merchandise" then you could cite that. But like I've said a billion times - that's not what THIS article says. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No the cite i gave is not incorrect. It shows that between 1989 & 1996 McCoy played the Doctor, and in fact this is absolutely correct. Between these dates McCoy was the only person to play the Doctor in a canon production until McGann took over. Whether he played him in 1992, 1993 etc is not relevant. McCoy was the actor who played the role between these dates.Deckchair (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the core disagreement we are having is whether "1987-1996" means "Between 1987 and 1996" or "1987 through 1996". But for clarity's sake, I agree with Pawnkingthree that it should be left as it is ("1987-89, 1996"). --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the answer to the meaning of the dash punctuation: "to indicate a closed range (a range with clearly defined and non-infinite upper and lower boundaries) of values, such as those between dates, times, or numbers." Thus, it is the entire range of time that is being represented ("through"), not a non-specific time between the two years ("between") --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That McCoy first played the Doctor in 1987 and last played him in 1996 is a fact. That he played the Doctor from 1987 to 1989 and again in 1996 is also a fact. Thus "1987-1996" and "1987-89, 1996" are both just different ways are describing what is effectively the same thing. We don't need a source to tell us which is the better, we can just decide for ourselves. The fact that the BBC site chooses to go one way doesn't mean we have to. I would argue that the latter is the better way. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what this article says. The BBC site simply says "Sylvester McCoy: 1987-1996". The Wiki article here lists the period in which the Doctor was "played by" each respective actor. There's no reason to cite an alternate source. It is a known fact by anyone who knows anything about this series that McCoy did not "play" the Doctor in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC source is not an alternative source. It is just one that you dont agree with. Please explain how it is alternative. Also to say that "anyone who knows anything about this series...." is original research and not within wikipedia guidelines and therefore not a basis for an article or claim within an article. Deckchair (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I mean an alternate source to the BBC site. You had asked that I provide other sources to back up my arguments. Anyway, you can't seriously tell me that the fact that McCoy did not play the Doctor during that time period is "original research" and therefore not valid??? We all know this to be true.--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Against my better judgement :) I added more sources that demonstrate that McCoy was not playing the Doctor in 1990-1995, per Deckchair's suggestion. There are an excessive amount of reference footnotes there now, and to be honest it looks ridiculous now. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The IMDB citation is possibly the only one that will have any credence (although IMDB takes subissions from the public and can be amended at their request - I know, i have done it in the past when they have shown incorrect information) . I believe that the SylvesterMccoy site is a fan site and is certainly unofficial and i do not believe it to fall within wikipedia guidlines. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we all just agree to leave it "1987-89, 1996" so that there's no confusion? It's concise, accurate, and consistent with sources. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Deckchair's harping on the word "alternative" is telling. His "to say that 'anyone who knows anything about this series....' is original research" indicates an absurd definition of OR. Even if it is also Wiki's official definition, it wouldn't be any less absurd. As I've said on other talk pages here, to define it that pickily would deny us the option of taking a TV show or movie's credits down off the screen, but require us to get them second hand, from an in-depth book or magazine article about the production, which all too often get something wrong. One example: Quite a few such sources list Patrick McGoohan as "Executive Producer" on each and every one of the 17 episodes of his series The Prisoner, but that credit just does not exist on three or four of them (I'm doing this off the top of my head, and which number is the correct one is not really germaine to this discussion) and Wikipedia would be wrong to put those sources ahead of the actual on-screen credits. This would, however, be the unavoidable result of that definition of OR. The simple fact of the matter is that to list McCoy's tenure as "1987—1996" is highly misleading, something an encyclopedia should never be guilty of if it wishes to have credibility as a source of information. As for Deckchair's criticism of the IMDb, at least submissions to that site are vetted before they get posted, which is something Wiki cannot claim. I occasionally have a great deal of difficulty in getting some very good, solid, and accurate information I've submitted to them (sometimes repeatedly, but as per their regs) to go up. So that comment is more applicable here than to the IMDb. Ted Watson (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this section so indented?--AKIRA70 (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ten Doctors

Would information on Rich Morris' webcomic the Ten Doctors fit in anywhere on this page? --Xero (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a fan website. It's not notable --OZOO 12:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it's pretty amazing. Certainly notable. But it's not canon, and thus not appropriate to include on THIS article. I suggest it may belong on Doctor Who spin-offs. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking over Doctor Who spin-offs, I could be mistaken, but that would appear to be licensed spin-offs... if this is a fan-made, but unofficial, webcomic, I would say it doesn't belong there (*insert "slippery slope"/"opening the door to the all fanfiction" argument here*). The webcomic itself could be checked to see if it has independent notability - i.e., discussion in articles on webcomics, possibly discussion/recognition by DW producers/critics/etc.. Anyways, just my $0.02 as a new guy to the project --Umrguy42 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

New article suggestion

I found an edit on The Claws of Axos that I polished up, but had my doubts that it was a good idea at all, and posted a message about it here. As can be seen, that situation has been resolved, but in the process, I had an idea for another Doctor Who-related article and put it forth there (I have no idea how it can be possible to cut and paste from one page to another—two completely separate pages, not two fields on the same page—so I can only link here). However, I have also come to feel that this is a better venue for the question. So, how does it sound? Ted Watson (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heppitattamutu

Protect the page doctor who? - Ancient Wu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.103.73 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)