Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Sarah Jane Adventures... stories?

As seen on my talk page, there has been some discussion over how Sarah Jane Adventures... things should be referred to. As in, stories or episodes or serials or what? I say stories personally. U-Mos (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word should be "story". One rationale for changing the word was that "story" alledgedly implied a print medium. The Oxford English Dictionary clearly doesn't believe this, thus severely weakening the argument. I think that "story" is a cleaner, better word that conveys what we want, perfectly. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I am think thinking the issue isn't one of definition but rather of usage. Doctor Who cover a fairly wide range of entertainment media, from comic books, paperbacks and radio broadcast to television series and films (honestly, noting the trend of the Brits to make musicals out the zaniest things, I fully expect a Doctor Who musical within the next five years). All are stories, but noting what type of story seems a more concise method of identifying the story. Where there was formerly only one medium of the Sarah Jane Adventures - a television programme - that has changed with the announcement that novels have been written on the subject. Qualifying such as "novels" or "episodes" or "film" or "radio broadcast" doesn't at all diminish the fact that they are all stories but in fact further specifies the format/type of the story. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that "serial" could also refer to written work or medium other than television. U-Mos (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As, indeed, could episode: an event or a group of events occurring as part of a sequence; each of the separate installments into which a serialised story* or programme is divided - there are no other definitions, that's the whole of the entry.

*As a point of information, the complete definition of story is: an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment; a storyline. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 21:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to be crude, gentlemen, but the word 'fuck' has a ton of definitions, depending upon the context it is used in. The discussion here is the usage of the word 'story' in the Sarah Jane articles. As there is a difference in the format - ie, context - that those stories take (books or television episodes), it seems pretty clear that we should distinguish which format those "stories" take.

And because the program is British, we use the British terms (series instead of season, programme instead of program, Labor Party instead of wanker ;) ). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean Labour party? ATMarsden^{Whadda ya want?} 14:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: In the episode article overview table, should we be including K-9 and Company? It is an aired program in the universe as much as SJA and Torchwood? Lordandrei (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Davros images

I'd like to invite project members to discuss the images for the Davros article at Talk:Davros#Images. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Bad Wolf?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a clear violation of WP:TALK and WP:FORUM - saying "c'mon" doesn't trump official policies and guidelines. Please avoid derailing and clogging up this discussion page with such material again. Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I know this isn't a forum, but "hey c'mon" ;)

I'm not really a fan and have only been watching since Martha started, but I was intrigued by the "Bad Wolf" bit in "Turn Left". So I've been tracing the whole bad wolf thing back, and I know that Rose deposited the words throughout time & space after absorbing the heart of the tardis. What I don't get is why "Bad Wolf"? Why did the Daleks named there TV station "Bad Wolf", what's the origin of term? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all an ontological paradox. Around the time of "Boom Town", the Doctor and Rose notice "Bad Wolf" following them everywhere. In "The Parting of the Ways", Rose figures out what it is - a message to make her go back to 200,100. She opens the heart of the TARDIS, becoming the "Bad Wolf", and scatters the words throughout time and space, including places she's seen it. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason, why she chose "Bad Wolf", maybe because she came for the Daleks in the end of Parting of the Ways like the big bad wolf does for lambs and little girls in red hoods. But not the Daleks named it Bad Wolf, Rose did, when she inhaled the time vortex she placed signs in the past to guide her to this situation. See Rose Tyler and Story arcs in Doctor Who#Bad Wolf for more details (as well as the final episode). So#Why 17:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I get that she left the words as a message to herself (so she knew that it was possible to take the Tardis back to the future). But Rose didn't invent the term "bad wolf", it was the Daleks with their "Bad Wolf Corporation" 4.14. She then literally took those words, de-atomaterialised em lol and sent em all over time n space 8.13. So my question is; why did the Daleks make the name "Bad Wolf Corporation"? (1.16 they also took about it's origin here) Ryan4314 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, look and hear closer to the second video you posted. Rose says "I take the words, I scatter them in time and space, a message to lead myself here". So the name "Bad Wolf Corporation" is only another one of these clues to herself. --So#Why 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so it's an "ontological paradox" like what Sceptre up above said, and no one knows the origin of the term? Ryan4314 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as it says in Bad Wolf. It was never revealed on screen why Rose did use this phrase but we can be sure from the aforementioned sentence in Parting of the Ways that it was not chosen by the Daleks but rather by her future self. But, yes, it's a paradox and never solved. There is only guessing possible. --So#Why 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

They also may originate from "Bad Wolf Bay", in Norway. That seems to be an arbitrary, real placename (within the fiction), and it's the last link between her and the Doctor. Twice over, even. That ought to carry a lot of symbolic weight. In "Doomsday", when she explained to the Doctor where they were, it was delivered as if it were the last key to a mystery. And as she says when she figures it out, "[Bad Wolf] means I can get back!" So if there were any particular origin for the phrase...--Aderack (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OIC, cool, well cheers 4 the help. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be interpreted (and is, by me) that she chose the name of the beach where she and the Doctor would part, as she could "see through time" after absorbing the vortex. But obviously, that couldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia without a source. U-Mos (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)'

Ah. Yes, exactly. That's how I read the scene in "Doomsday", anyway. The reference there doesn't seem to serve much point, otherwise.--Aderack (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also take into account the fact that Dalek Caan saw the entirety of time and was manipulating elements throughout time to bring about the defeat of the Daleks in "Journey's End." The start of the Time War (credited to Genesis of the Daleks where the Time Lords intervene (against their character)), The Bad Wolf maneuver with Rose and the Heart of the Tardis, and moving Donna into play. It's hard to tell exactly how much of hand... er, tentacle, Dalek Caan had. Lordandrei (talk) 06:20, 30 August 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.

Determining companions

I think that the WikiProject needs to have a definite method of determining whether a character counts as a companion in an episode, especially due to how the latest season has done things. Right now, Sarah Jane isn't counted as a companion in "School Reunion", and Mickey isn't counted as a companion in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday". However, other characters are credited in their appearances as companions despite not fulfilling the companion role, such as Jack in "The Empty Child" and Martha in "The Sontaran Strategem". Rose is credited as a companion in "Turn Left" merely because Billie Piper is credited as an episode star, despite Rose having no contact whatsoever with the Doctor throughout the episode. If Rose, Martha, and Jack are companions in the previously mentioned episodes, then Mickey and Sarah Jane should be in the episodes I mentioned, since characters don't have to be in the opening credits to be a companion. There seems to be a double standard going on. Thanks Ophois (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In the new series, I think a relatively easy metric is available - characters who have appeared in the opening credits are companions in all of their appearances. For the old series, a similarly easy metric is available - companions are credited in the closing credits immediately after the Doctor. Again, I think a "once a companion, always a companion" approach works.

This does not count Mickey as a companion. I am OK with this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having it based on opening creidts also removes Adam and Series 1 Jack. However, I do agree with "once a companion, always a companion". Ophois (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right - but since Barrowman subsequently appeared in the credits, he can be backdated as a companion, to my mind. We do lose Adam. I am OK with that as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This probably won't settle any arguments but don't forget that we need outside sources not our opinions to verify page entries (see the thread about Nyssa's status here [1]). It is what the producers and writers consider as companions that count not our fan arguments. The DVD commentary for series one has Bruno Langley interviewed with reference to his character being a companion. Mickey is also referred to as a companion in series two DVD extras. Only using opening credits is an iffy way to go as they have as much to do with star power and agent negotiations as they do with anything else. Referencing interviews and official websites like the BBC is probably the way to go in the decision making process. I sometimes wonder if Russell T looked at the amount of time that was spent arguing over SJ's status in "SR" here and at other websites and said to himself "I'm going to create River Song and really set the cat among the pigeons. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One other solution, since without references certain arguments will never be settled - and some won't be settled even with them, is to do away with the companions section of the cast list in the infobox and just list everyone as "Cast" the way that we did before we moved the lists into the boxes. I would support this move. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would look at it two ways. Firstly, if an actor is listed in the opening credits they should be a companion. Secondly, if they begin to travel with the Doctor in that story, even if they technically do not fill the role at that point (such as Adam, Jack in The Empty Child and Mickey in School Reunion) they are also companions. I don't believe there should be a definite, razor-sharp definition as there will always be someone who doesn't work with it (such as Jenny, who I'm sure most would agree wasn't a companion in The Doctor's Daughter despite planning to join the Doctor). U-Mos (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I also disagree with "once a companion, always a companion". So what, we're going to put Rose as a companion in Partners in Crime? U-Mos (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with U-Mos, I think the opening credits are definately an indication for the role as Companion but that does not mean only those can be Companions but those should be counted as such no matter what role they play. As said, the "once a companion, always a companion"-rule would place Rose as a companion in those episodes she had a short guest appearance. So I think the rule should be "Characters in the opening credits are always Companions. All other characters have to be assessed based on whether they fill this role". So Mickey is a Companion in season 1, as well as Adam and Jack, despite not being listed in the opening credits. So#Why 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Mickey should only be a companion for the four series 2 episodes where he actually travelled with the Doctor, and nowhere else. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he can be counted as Companion in Boom Town as well, as he helps the Doctor and is seen in the whole episode. But generally we should have "opening credits = companion" as a rule and decide by consensus on those episodes where the name is not in the opening credits and there is doubt whether to count them as such. So#Why 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can common sense our way around unannounced and unspeaking cameo appearances. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Here's my take on companionship (for the new series): One is a companion when 1) credited in opening credits, or 2) accepted invitation by the Doctor. Once invited, apearences in imediate preceding episodes should also count as companion (ie. Jack in The Empty Child/World War Three, and Mickey in School Reunion). — Edokter • Talk • 13:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a risk of venturing into synthesis here. We can define if someone is a compannion or not from sources such as [2], generally we cannot define when they were a companion. Edokter's suggestion has some merit, however being in the opening credits doesnt mean you are a companion, it means you are in the opening credits. I would suggest replacing the companion term in the infobox with something less formal, such as starring (or wording slightly more catchy) Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to: "Oh, and I also disagree with "once a companion, always a companion". So what, we're going to put Rose as a companion in Partners in Crime?"

Rose is currently labelled as a companion for "Turn Left", yet does nothing with the Doctor. How does she fulfill the companion role more in "Turn Left" than she does in "Partners in Crime"? If she's a companion in "Turn Left", we might as well label her as such throughout the whole season. I suggest that we use reliable sources to verify that a character is a companion at some point in the series, and then use "once a companion, always a companion" for subsequent appearances. Ophois (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Fasach Nua, please note that Companion itself is an informal term used by fans and other media, but seldom by the BBC. So it is open to definition by us to be reached in consensus. WP:OR can be overstretched sometimes...it should not hinder us to define the term and apply it accordingly, seeing that there is no definition of the term. So#Why 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, so long as you can WP:PROVEIT Fasach Nua (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Detemining Companions (section break 1)

I don't agree with the "once a companion always a companion" - I think Harry Sullivan in The Android Invasion is a good example of why that is not the case. Who are the companions? Those stated to be companions by the people that make the show. The writers of the show choose companions all the time, and the only time people seem to have a problem with that is when they only appear in one story. Why can't someone be a companion for one story? If the writers say a character is a companion for one story, then they are a companion for one story. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because companions are returning right and left in the new series, and mostly are credited in the opening credits when they do. Some people are assuming that they are automatically counted as companions because they are in the opening credits, without even considering what role the character plays in the episode. Jack doesn't take on the companion role until the end of "The Doctor Dances", Martha doesn't resume her companion role until the end of "The Poison Sky", and Rose doesn't until the end of "The Stolen Earth". However, because the latter two are in the opening credits, they are automatically being labelled as companions. As shown in previous episodes, the opening credits don't determine whether a character is a companion or not. Sarah Jane and Mickey have the same roles in their returning episodes ("School Reunion", and "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday") as Martha and Rose did in the previously mentioned episodes. As I said before, there is a double standard going on. Ophois (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

""So the prevailing logic is going to be that if they appear in the opening credits, they are Companions? That's a pretty big, evaluative decision. Evaluative as in a hop, skip and jump - and a train ride over the synthesis line. When we have citation specifically naming them as companions for the episode they appear in, then - and only then - should they be considered as such. Excluding Adam ~~Monroe~~Mitchell, who actually was a traveler with Rose, etc is some folk letting their fannish interests peek through. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should shy away from any "definition" of companion of our own, and stick with the characters who are referred to as companions in reliable sources. For the classic series, the BBC's website has a handy list. They also list Rose, Martha, Donna, Jack, Sarah Jane and Mickey under the heading "Companions" in the Series 4 section. This excludes only Adam, but I think that the Doctor Who Confidential interviews in which he's referred to as a companion takes care of that. (By the way, it's Adam Mitchell — Adam Monroe is a villain on Heroes!)

Part of the problem we're having is that we're conflating two distinct questions. The first is "Which characters do we consider companions?" I think that's answered fairly well by the sources I mentioned above (the classic series website even gives us a handy answer to old conundrums like whether the Brigadier and other UNIT staff "count" — whatever our individual opinions, we can list the Brigadier and Mike Yates as companions, because the BBC website says so; the Series 4 page also distinguishes between "Companions" and "Friends & Allies", helping us figure out Jackie). The second question is "What characters do we list in the "companion" slot in the infobox?" That's rather more complicated, and I'm not sure that there's an answer which comports easily with Wikipedia policies. Making up rules like whether someone is listed in the opening credits is really pretty arbitrary: the opening credits are about whether the actor listed is considered a "star" in the episode, not whether the character they play is considered a companion or not. It's also veering into synthesis for us to determine whether a character does or doesn't "play the role of a companion" — that way lies arguments about whether one-off companions like Grace or Astrid should be counted or not, since they don't travel in the TARDIS.

Ultimately, I think that to determine who gets listed in the "companion" field in disputed cases we have to find sources which refer to the characters as companions in that episode. It sounds daunting, but it's probably not that tough — there was so much media coverage for "Journey's End" that I'm sure at least one newspaper listed all the "returning companions". Of course, we're then open to the possibility of dealing with conflicting sources, but we can probably treat things like Doctor Who Magazine or Confidential as more reliable for this subject than random newspaper reports. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would also not be opposed to removing the "companion" field altogether, as MarnetteD suggests. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor would I be opposed to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember that there was an attempt to get round this with the "additional star" field being in place for incidents like Billie Piper in Turn Left - maybe that's the best way round this? 86.154.185.86 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Additional Star" would be best if no citation as a companion can be found for starring actors. Ophois (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the companion-field should be left in place. It is a DW term that is used in many sources and we never had any reason to start changing that. For in 99% of all cases the companion-ship role was very clear. So we have only a few episodes/serial (like Turn Left) where it's unclear and we should concentrate on that. I would propose some editor (who might know someone there) contacts the BBC (or RTD or someone working on DW) and asks them whether the names in the opening title are to be regarded as companions or not. Then we'd have a reliable source for including them or leaving them out and we could skip all this discussion. I do not live in the UK but I doubt it would be very hard to find someone on Wikipedia who is interested in DW and may get a response from the BBC (or RTD or...). So#Why ^{review me!} 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and their response would likely be "well, that depends on what you mean by 'companion' doesn't it?" ... I doubt that the BBC or Davies but near as much as thought into this issue as Wikipedia editors do! ;) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 15:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that. We have many sources from the BBC as well which use this term, see just those for Astrid Peth. It would just be another clarification. So#Why ^{review me!} 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with treating "Companion" as a description of a class of characters, rather than as a role in a given episode. It is useful, on an infobox level, which of these characters appear in an episode - simply put, even if Harry Sullivan returns and does not travel with the Doctor it is sufficiently significant that he appears that it is worth giving him a berth in the companions slot in the infobox. I mean, I'm trying to take a pragmatic approach here - generally speaking, it seems to me that someone interested in appearances of a given companion will not be served by information that tries to split hairs on the exact nature of the character's role in a given story. And it seems to me that plenty of people will be interested in appearances of a given companion. Ergo an inclusive solution that does not depend on fannish readings is ideal. Treating companions as a class of characters with an "if ever a companion, always a companion" attitude seems to me more informative and deferential to an out-of-universe perspective than any sort of hair-splitting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. And Harry should be treated as a companion in Android Invasion, even if from an ultra-technical standpoint an alternate viewpoint can be sustained. Those ultra-technical points can be dealt with in fan literature. For a general encyclopedia the fact that the companion Harry Sullivam appears in Android Invasion is what is most relevant, not whether he technically fulfills the companion role in the story. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why, after someone has been a companion and left, do they automatically become a companion again when they appear. Look at Mickey Smith - appeared in aa few episode of series 1 as a guest star the joins up as a companion in series 2. Does that suddenly make him a companion for those guest star appearances in series one? No, it doesn't. So why does it make him a companion in the guest star appearances after he leaves as a companion? And as posted by others, no-one considers the role that they have. Look at Rose - is she a companion for her 10 seconds in Partners in Crime, when she doesn't meet the doctor? No. So why is she suddenly a companion in Turn Left when she doesn't meet the Doctor? 81.157.235.65 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's two ways of looking at this, he can either be considered as a companion for the episode or he can be considered a character who has served as a companion. In this regard, Mickey didn't act as a companion character during those episodes, however he is a companion character who has appeared in those episodes. I think we should make it a policy point to whether list characters as "current" companion in the infoboxes or whether to list companion characters that make an appearance. This should probably alleviate some of the problem. DonQuixote (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And I think "companion characters that make an appearance" is the better choice, because it takes the OR out of the equation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

prod on Luke Smith

A prod has been placed on the article Luke Smith. I tried to remove it, but it has been replaced. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1478 articles are assigned to this project, of which 290, or 19.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable idea. I propose some form of taskforce - similar to the assessment committee - to deal with all 1478 of the articles. What does anyone else here think? - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but I doubt we can find people to do so. It's a tedious task to do for people who have way too much time on their hands. I may do some of them but I will have to finish re-assessing stuff to C-class first, the DW-task I currently do. But I think having the bot create a listing with what needs to be done can't hurt in any way. So#Why 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode citation guides

I'd just like to inform members of this WikiProject that I have created episode citation guides for K-9 and Company, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures along the lines of those created for Doctor Who which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode citations. The guides for K-9 and Company and The Sarah Jane Adventures can both be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/The Sarah Jane Adventures episode citations and the guides for Torchwood can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Torchwood episode citations. I hope you find them useful. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job! Keep it up :-) So#Why 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I've changed the citation navigation box to include links to these new pages. --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lynda Moss

A new editor, Ratzo (talk · contribs), has created a page for Lynda Moss (that's "Lynda-with-a-y" from Bad Wolf and Parting of the Ways). I turned that into a redirect to Bad Wolf, per our usual policy for characters who appear in only one story and don't have substantial press coverage treating them as companions. Ratzo feels strongly that Lynda was a companion and should have her own page. I told him (on his talk page) that we operate by consensus, and so I invite other project members to express their views on whether Lynda was a companion and/or should have her own page; discussion could be here, or at Talk:Lynda Moss (Doctor Who), or at User talk:Ratzo#Lynda Moss. But remember not to bite the newbie! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replied at his talk page, but I think you are correct in this case, as there are no reliable sources for such claims. So#Why 15:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the Ninth Doctor obliquely proposed that she may travel with him, nothing was able to come of this because of her death. As it was only a proposition with neither party absolutely confirming that this would be the case, I don't think she can be considered a companion. Additionally, as noted above, we lack official sources to confirm her companion status. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Category: The Sarah Jane Adventures companions

Ratzo (talk · contribs) has created a new category, Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures companions. I'm not sure this is terribly useful — it basically would mean "all the SJA characters except for Sarah and Alan Jackson". We've already got Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures characters. Is this new category helpful? Have Luke, Maria and Clyde been referred to as Sarah's "companions" in reliable sources? I'm not pushing for deletion of the category — I'd just like to hear some discussion of whether it's warranted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Not wanting to bite the newbie, I am AGF here. But I guess you are right here (again). Companion is a term used for Doctor Who itself and which has never been used in it's spin-offs (to my knowledge). I think Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures characters is perfectly useful for SJA-purposes and there is no need for a new cat, especially as there are not that many characters to distinguish between (with only one serial to date) anyway. On a side note, you should invite Ratzo (talk · contribs) to join the WikiProject and take part in our discussions, I think he might make some valuable contributions. So#Why 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did invite Ratzo to join us, and I've put the category up at CFD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

About minor characters

Our energetic young friend Ratzo has suggested that it might be good if redirects like Sally Sparrow pointed to a list of minor characters, instead of towards the episode in which they appeared. I'm largely neutral on this notion, although I do worry that we've got a bit of listcruft going on with pages like List of Doctor Who henchmen. So... thoughts? (Including Ratzo — please join in!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is a good idea. Especially for characters who appear in more than one episode but where there is not enough information to warrant their own article. We might even merge character-bio-stubs (but only those!) into that article so that characteristics of those persons can be read up without having to try to find out by reading the episode article (which usually does not tell much about such characters, Sally Sparrow a exception now, as she is the main character in "Blink"). So#Why 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see the benefits for minor recurring characters like Jake Simmonds, Leo Jones or even Trinity Wells (the American newsreader), who may not have enough real-world notability to merit their own articles. But I'm still unsure about whether a character like Sally Sparrow (significant in one episode, but not recurring) should point to the episode or to a minor characters list. Would it be better to approach this as a revamping of List of Doctor Who supporting characters or as a whole new list? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Sally Sparrow is a biographical article (or rather was), and Blink is about the episode she was in, I'd suggest a rediect to something biographical - Minor characters in Doctor Who, perhaps. It doesn't have to be a list, you could prosify it and have a section for each season/year/doctor or whatever. Sally could possibly get her own subsection, being a prime mover in the episode. Elton Pope could as well. It'd be good to have these one-story characters gathered up actually, to settle those "which one was Lady Amelia Ducat in again?" type questions. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can revamp List of Doctor Who supporting characters to look like Characters of NCIS, NCIS being another show which I care for the articles. I.e. have links for those supporting/minor characters who have their own articles (maybe with a short sentence or two) and have all those who do not warrant an own article listed there. Maybe multiple articles given the fact that DW is quite old and there are scores of such characters - maybe one for every Doctor. As for Sally Sparrow, she can be listed there as well, but she is not the prime example I had in mind, seeing that "Blink" is only about her anyway. So#Why 20:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Characters of NCIS is a good page, and List of minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy covers a fic that's had TV, book, film and radio versions, if that helps from a Who point of view. Totnesmartin (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Having seen the articles listed under List of minor EastEnders characters and Minor characters in Star Wars, I could see the possibility of having under List of Doctor Who characters (currently used for redirecting to List of Doctor Who supporting characters) listings for a number of articles in the style of either; List of Doctor Who characters in Season 1 (1963-1964), List of Doctor Who characters in Season 26 (1989), List of Doctor Who characters in Series 4 (2008), etc.; or List of Doctor Who characters (First Doctor stories), List of Doctor Who characters (Tenth Doctor stories), etc.. (Obviously, Doctors, companions, villains etc. would just be listed with links to their main articles or entry on an existing link.) There's a wealth of reliable material that could be cited for this sort of information, including the official Doctor Who website, issues of Doctor Who Magazine, Gary Russell's Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia and Lesley Standring's The Doctor Who Illustrated A-Z. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Story Chronology

Putting aside the issue that this is basically just a wikified version of drwhoguide.com, its title is both misleading and confusing -- especially when placed in the navbar. It's not an article about story chronology; it's a list of where tie-in works slot into the TV continuity. Although there is perhaps value to such an article (even in as huge and unwieldy a shape as this), it should be renamed for clarity. Again, this article is all about the tie-in works.

Something like "Expanded Doctor Who Continuity" would work. I propose a move to that name, or one like it.--Aderack (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass character AFD attempt thwarted

Although it was quickly closed with a snowball speedy keep decision, the project should be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace (Doctor Who), an attempt a couple days ago at not only deleting Ace's article, but that of virtually every other companion as well. The nominator made the statement "there are many more articles that need to be deleted", and even one of the supporters for keeping suggested some of the "minor" companions (of course one must violate WP:NPOV to make that distinction, but no never mind) should lose their articles in favor of merging into a list. It's probably worth keeping an eye on the AFD page in case renominations are attempted or other DW-related articles become targets (I saw this happen before with some Star Trek articles: someone did a POINTY nomination that got slapped down, but it drew attention to the articles and additional articles ended up being nominated by others. That fact some of these articles actually have been registered as Good articles doesn't appear to render them immune, either. 23skidoo (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people take deletionism waaaaay too far. Such approaches harm Wikipedia very much, even when assuming good faith. But I find it difficult to AGF when someone adds a mass of articles, most of them at least "C"-class and even a GA. You are correct, we need to monitor for such things happening, but I do not know how one would do so but by watchlisting all DW-articles. Any ideas how to easily keep an eye on that? So#Why ^{review me!} 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of policy, the nomination was absolutely correct - it's only fans that fail the AfDs. In reality, all the companions with no sources to testify out-of-universe notability should be merged into a List of Doctor Who companions article, or Supporting characters in Doctor Who or something. The modern major companions, such as Rose, Donna, Martha, and Jack all exist beyond the in-universe perspective, as do K-9 and even Jenny.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think mergism is a better alternative. If an article is written in-universe-style and has no sources (which I doubt with B- or GA-class-articles, which were on that list too), then the way should be to change that instead of deleting massive amounts of useful information when merging. I see no reason why a list of characters would need less sources or be less in-universe. So if that's the problem, merging will not fix it - working on the problems will. It is some work but it's worth it in the end. So#Why ^{review me!} 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is tons of information in old Doctor Who Magazine issues, but I can't imagine there's much more available in accessible modern sources or online other than passing references to sex appeal, chauvinist depictions. In characters with renewed interest (like Sarah Jane, and the Brig) there are much more sources to attest to their characterisation and conception. Merging would be an opportunity to cull the "biographical content"; a paragraph per season/series is sufficient, and even then can be a bit much with some characters. Everything else of notability forms elements of characterisation.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Small problem with that — putting for the idea that a cited secondary source has to be current and/or available on-line puts a recentist's spin on the articles. If the material exists in reliable secondary form, in any way, it should be fair game for building an article. DWM, old newspaper and trade magazine interviews, out of print books, and the like should be good. - J Greb (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of recentism is a side-effect of the Wiki policy. It favours the immediately sourceable, and older things start to cease to exist. Until an editor comes along with the gumption and resources to re-write the companion articles, a list would be a happy home for them while dedicated individuals work on writing up full-sized articles in their userspace to spin-off from the list.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that would mean the end for many historical articles because they mostly work from book sources, most of them old books, not readily available. But that's not the criteria for WP:V fortunately. So yes, old DWM's are perfectly good sources for them and I'd go and write it all myself if I had access to them. But while I think there are surely national libraries in the UK, which, like in Germany, index everything printed, I do not live there to access them. But the point is, there is no reason to merge away all the information in those articles just because there are no sources yet. That is why there is a {{unsourced}}-tag and an {{inuniverse}}-tag. We should add them to the articles where we perceive such problems to exist but not just delete them away... So#Why ^{review me!} 07:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion, it reinforces my personal decision to abandon Wikipedia with regards certain things and concentrate on editing the TARDIS Wikia site where they don't care about such things (at least not to the same extent). Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia about everything notable (and recurring characters on an internationally broadcast TV series are notable), yet along the way Wikipedia decided it wanted to become Britannica. If I wanted Britannica I wouldn't have kicked the encyclopedia salesman out the door when he paid me a visit. When the companion articles are deleted or merged, could someone be so kind as to notify the webmaster at www.drwhoguide.com? All the companion articles are cross-referenced from that website. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been put up for review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 6 81.157.235.65 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Review was closed as endorse closure, just fyi. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual discussion of the review has been removed from the page, but can be found here in the history. It might be worth reading the comments to see some of the concerns raised, given the likelihood that some of these individual articles might be renominated individually. 23skidoo (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another AFD underway

I'm not sure if my above prediction is coming true or not, but another character-related AFD has been launched: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (2nd nomination). 23skidoo (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Three days later, the nomination is still active. Looks like general support to keep, but the fact this hasn't been closed yet might been it's not yet seen as consensus. 23skidoo (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Doctor Who participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Exhibition images

A number of good faith uploads have occured from a Doctor who exhibitions, including Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Cyberman 01.jpg and Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Weeping Angel.jpg, these images likely fall outside the UK's freedom of panorama [3] and therefore are not free. This can cause havoc, copyrighted images that are being used may be deleted as replacable with free alternatives, and the "free" alternatives will be deleted as improper licence. If editors could keep an eye out for these images it will avoid a lot of trouble in the long run Fasach Nua (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two or three things...

Why exactly are you seeing this falling outside of the Freedom of Panorama? The seem to fit, or is the exhibition non-permanent?

Does someone have a list of where these images have been placed (I believe Auton has been changed as well, but there have to be others)? As long as we've got such a list, it is easy enough to restore the properly FURred images if/when these are purged.

And last, it looks like that purge may have started since the Weeping Angle is up for a speedy deletion. - J Greb (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it is non-permanent

I would imagine given the profile of the show, and the numbers attending the exhibition, there would be many good faith uploads yet to come Fasach Nua (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; I think the Earls Court exhibition might just semi-permanent (it took place last year, IIRC), but only open for six months at a time. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actualy FP has written to the organisers here, it might be a very good thing for this project if they can be used Fasach Nua (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit of a request for help

First things first: I'm impressed with how much people have been following in my lead in writing articles. They're looking a lot better. So now, onto my request.

A thing I've always found difficult is finding reviews for the episodes. I have an abundance of production material (Confidential, podcast, the magazine, the companion that came out yesterday, and I'm going to get RTD's autobiography next month), but reviews tend to stump me. So this is a polite request: could you possibly find some reviews, and if possible, add them to the following articles in the style of what is done for "The Fires of Pompeii", "Planet of the Ood", and "The Stolen Earth"?:

Any other improvements (expansion of out-of-universe information and shortening of plots and continuity) will be gladly appreciated. My overall aim is to have a series four featured topic, though I am fully aware we cannot get that before mid-January at the earliest (if it takes two days to write about the Christmas special (which is a part of series 4), a week to GA review, and two weeks at FTC). We need four featured content articles (three of which should be the series list, Partners in Crime, and The Stolen Earth), regardless of if we include "Time Crash" and "Music of the Spheres" as ancillary episodes or not. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Having added stuff from reviews for episodes such as "Journey's End", I find typing in the episode's title and the word "review" into Google after the episode has been shown brings up quite a good range of sources. (That sentence is written to be helpful, not patronising as it could come across, it being difficult to convey tone online.) Often more results come up when repeating the search after a few hours or days. Obviously, one has to pick through the reviews that are just from fan blogs, but the newspaper reviews tend to get top listings and one can also add "Telegraph" or "Guardian", etc. to the search to find specific reviews. I also recommend Digital Spy's reviews (found here) and SFX's reviews (found here). Hope that's of some help as I currently have not the time to add this material myself. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Doctor Who participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Stolen Earth

Congratulations! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 08:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!!! So Why 08:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars all round! This is a nice bastion of hope against thse constant AfDs - Weebiloobil (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Templates

I was looking at the index for templates, and noticed that there is a duplicate with Template:Skaro Stories and Template:Skaro stories. 86.149.200.12 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

One of them was a test page. — Edokter • Talk • 22:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging the majority of semi-canonical works into their respective lists?

By semi-canonical, I mean books and audio. At least 90% of these articles are stubs, and are unlikely to progress any further. I believe that we may be able to provide a more encyclopedic format in a list format similar to List of Heroes episodes, or Doctor Who (series 4). Of course, the really notable novels, such as Lungbarrow, or Human Nature, won't be merged. I'll keep this proposal open for several weeks because it's rather large in scale. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most of these can be expanded decently. DWM reviews pretty much all of the books and audio, iirc. The New Adventures were pretty widely discussed on rec.arts.doctorwho back in the day, and I know many of the authors posted there with non-trivial frequency. Oodles of interviews with these writers exist, again because DWM had to fill a page count every month, and for a good 20+ years there was fuck all to report on Doctor Who. I can't imagine that good, detailed articles couldn't be written on almost all of the New Adventures and BBC books. I suspect that any of the Big Finish material before the new series could similarly be done. After the new series hit and attention to the ancillary material faded it might get dicier, but there are enough fan publications and the authors are generally sufficiently available that I bet we can do OK. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology discussion re OR, etc

I've initiated a discussion on the Chronology of the Doctor Who universe discussion page about minimising the amount of OR, etc, in that article (some of it necessary, IMO) that people may wish to contribute to. (There may be some who think the whole article should be deleted! :) But that discussion would probably best be held here.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem is this - I don't think that there has been a serious effort at maintaining a "history of the universe" over 30 seasons of Doctor Who. And so it's not that there's OR in the article - it's that I'm unconvinced the article documents something that exists in any meaningful sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The article obviously documents something that many others find meaningful, and I contend that it's something vital that should and must exist as a reference point for any work of fiction about time travel. Due to the length of the series, and thus the number of events to be recounted, it is unique in its necessity - this, above all other works of time travel fiction, must surely warrant such a reference. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'd contend, however, that with so many authors, producers, directors, and actors, you can't treat the whole of Doctor Who as a single work of fiction. I am very much unconvinced that Russell T. Davies cares particularly whether a story he sets in a given time period conflicts with some lost episode of the Troughton era that hardly anybody watching will have ever seen. I mean, I just don't think this sort of meta-chronology has ever been in any meaningful sense operative within the show. It's a fan construction through and through. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a strong argument. But :), the article doesn't claim (or at least it shouldn't, IMO, and some of the blurb introducing each section should perhaps be deleted for that reason) that there is a consistent timeline, or set one out. (Though nor should it claim the opposite - that there definitely isn't a consistent timeline.) All the article does is state when each story or episode can be dateable to on the basis of what can be seen or heard by the viewer. What a particular individual does with that information is up to them. They could choose to ignore it. But if they wanted to try and produce for their own amusement a consistent timeline, the article sets out what they need to consider. If they want to produce a work of fan or professional fiction and wanted to be consistent date-wise with the televised episodes, the article tells them what flexibility they have. Or if they want to know if the Doctor has been to the French revolution, they can find the dates and see if any stories come in that period and then cross-reference the story articles. Though I'm sure that if RTD or any other writer thought that a good story needed to contradict an early episode they'd have no hesitation, I'm not convinced that they gratuitously ignore it. After all, being fans themselves, they know how much this can upset some fans, and why do that unneccessarily? They have enough trouble with some fans as it is! (Though whether they use this Wiki article for this purpose is another matter. :) ) It should be noted that the New Series and its spin-offs are consistent - much more so that the Classic series. The article is useful because the information it contains takes a long time to collate. It saves people having to do that spade work over again. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be fine with List of Doctor Who stories by time of setting or something that did not attempt to provide a unified timeline of something that is not unified, for what it is worth - dividing it into historical eras, and then, for future-set stories, making some sort of near-future/far-future distinction as needed and useful. And if this timeline hasn't been ported to the TARDIS Index File, it should be post haste. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to such a change in title. I agree that 'Chronology' does tend to suggest a 'unified timeline', which should not be attempted on Wikipedia. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, about the RTD argument; please don't use RTD! Sceptre ^(talk) 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nods to past episodes do not equate to coherent continuity. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So what constitutes continuity for you? I'm pretty sure that "Gridlock" must indicate continuity with The Macra Terror. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No more than, to my mind, the presence of Skaro indicates continuity between Genesis of the Daleks and The Daleks. Intertextuality can and does exist without continuity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about Sarah Jane? That, to my mind, establishes a continuity more than a simple intertextual reference; I wouldn't be going so far as to suggest that Sarah was deliberately introduced as part of the Davros master plot; Sarah was written into the finale because she was "there on Skaro at the very beginning", but she needed to be fleshed out in the new series, especially her previous adventures with the Doctor. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, and clearly I wouldn't argue that there is never any sense of continuity. Journey's End is steeped with a sort of continuity, as was School Reunion. Episodes don't exist in a vacuum - but the relationship between two given episodes where one references another seems to me more a relationship of intertextuality, homage, and reference than a strict in-universe continuity issue. That is, a given episode may reference another for a particular literary effect. But there is clearly no obligation towards continuity. References between episodes are made when they are convenient - not out of obligation. Which is the problem I have with a chronology - it falsely implies that the past of the show is a static and monolithic structure that is always operative, as opposed to a rich well of history that can be drawn from when it is convenient to do so. I'm much more comfortable with continuity sections on a given article, because those deal with specific references and connections that are clearly present, as opposed to assuming that, say, Image of the Fendahl and Mawdryn Undead share some relationship by virtue of the fact that both happen in 1977, or that any connection exists among the various destructions of Atlantis. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Davies has made it abundantly clear that the new series is meant to be a continuation of the old. "He's the same man who fought the Drahvins, The Macra, The Axons, The Wirrn, the Terileptils, the Borad, the Bannermen and the Master in San Francisco on New Year's Eve 1999," - Doctor Who Magazine #344. There is quite a bit more in the new series that relates to the old as far as continuity than could be shrugged off as simply "nods to the old series". There is absolutely continuity. Sure, there have been mistakes made between 1963 and now, but this article can clearly exist and provide specific info, while noting possible errors or contradictions at the same time. There's no reason to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 19:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is really that the idea of "continuity" in a 45 year old series is far from straightforward. Yes, the new series is "a continuation," but what does that even mean? The fannish obsession with continuity and continuity errors is rarely supported by the texts they are fans of in any sort of straightforward way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's not "straightforward" - I don't think anyone is arguing that it is. But nor is this fact a reason to remove pertinent & useful information in the article in an attempt to make it infallible or in some way beyond question. It is what it is, and it serves a purpose as a "fan construction". All that's necessary then is to have some appropriate introduction text that explains the source of the information. Obviously it's not some kind of "official timeline" and is compiled by multiple third party editors based on available information - if it were otherwise, it wouldn't be on Wikipedia - it would be on www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/officialchronology/ :) —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another image restriction proposal

Currently being proposed at WT:NFC: that fair-use images should only be allowed in commentary sections, in conjunction with specific externally-sourced comments, and should be prohibited from plot summary sections, and (presumably) infoboxes.

This seems to me to go way beyond the current restrictions of WP:NFC, and IMO is unnecessary and misguided.

Anyhow, discussion started here and has been recently revived here if anybody's interested. Jheald (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I still say that before the deletionists are finished all images will be banned from Wikipedia, except maybe that Wikipedia globe in the top left corner. I still have yet to hear of a single occasion in which Wikipedia - or any site like Wikipedia - has been sued over an image. 23skidoo (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Luke Smith and Maria Jackson up for deletion

Luke Smith (AfD) and Maria Jackson (AfD) are currently going through articles for deletion discussions. If you have any views as to whether or not they should be deleted, please comment on the appropriate page. Thanks, _Talk Islander 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. McWomble (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks for the preaching ;). I did in fact ensure that my note was as neutral as possible. _Talk Islander 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I find McWomble's need to post the above extremely offensive. What, he thinks the many admins and experienced editors who are part of this project don't know what the policies are. Give me a break. 23skidoo (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take this to that user's talk page - but I for my part will assume good faith that he/she only wanted to avoid pile-on supports without basis. They sometimes happen with fans who fiercely fight for every article but this is fortunately not the case here. But let's just keep it on topic. :-) So Why 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I feel it is necessry to indicate what I consider to be an inappropriate posting in the location where the post has been made. A similar note has been left on the AFDs in question where the same message has been place. The boilerplate used is intended for AFDs where non-Wikipedia message boards and forums have been notified of the AFD and so people unfamiliar with Wikipedia process have "piled on" from elsewhere. It is not appropriate to "preach to the converted" in this way, especially since the articles in question are part of a sanctioned Wikiproject. 23skidoo (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Genocide (Doctor Who) in need of book-cover

The article on EDA novel could do with a book-cover.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise Damaged Goods.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica References in Doctor Who

I'm trying to find if there is at least one reference in any of the Doctor Who novels or audio adventures. So far all I have turned up is a thread on Outpost Gallifrey's discussion forum. [4] Any pointers?--DrWho42 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, DW-Forum is not available without registration, so linking there probably does not help. Second, I do not recall any other, reliable sources making such connections, so there is nothing we can include in the DW articles here. So Why 23:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources could be the books and audio dramas themselves. The Whoniverse seems to claim that the Re-imagined Series inspires Immortal Beloved's act of downloading consciousness into new bodies, although since I haven't actually listened to that audio drama as yet: it doesn't seem to be an actual reference.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't downloading consciousness into a new body a long-standing SF concept anyway? John Sladek's The Müller-Fokker Effect had it as a plot device in 1971, and the various mind transfer stories in Star Trek and The Outer Limits go back to the sixties, man. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the books and audio dramas cannot be a source unless they clearly state "this is a reference to BSG". Otherwise it's WP:OR to say there is a reference if it's not totally obvious. As Totnesmartin points out, many concepts are usual in SciFi, not specific to one show. So Why 12:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Totnesmartin on the fact that it's nothing new, and that it's also not a reference. I understand the policy, and I'm more concerned with the obvious references (i.e. Anji Kapoor has The X-Files theme as her cellphone ringtone).--DrWho42 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Doctor Who

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Internal request for comments on a thing at The Next Doctor

Hi together, please head over to Talk:The Next Doctor#"Newspapers are not reliable sources" if you have some minutes and give your input on how to handle such info. Regards So Why 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC Book covers to be possibly deleted

The images for Alien Bodies and Demontage have been tagged for possible deletion. Could someone with a better grasp of the copyright issues look at them, and hopefully save them? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Brigadier as companion

The old perennial question of whether the Brigadier should be counted as a companion has come up again, this time in relation to the infoboxes. The discussion has been started at Talk:Doctor Who#Brigadier as companion?, so I suppose it had better stay there — this is just a heads up to any interested parties. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging lists of serials and titled episodes?

I propose merging the List of titled Doctor Who episodes into the List of Doctor Who serials. The former article contains very little additional information, which could easily be incorporated into the latter. This will make the latter article longer (though as a list, that's not as much of a concern as usual) - though not by as much as one would think initially, as many rows in the latter article are multiple lines long - but does get rid of an entire article.

I propose that instead of giving the number of episodes in the 'Episodes' column, we give the individual episode names, and give the individual transmission dates in the last column. Here is the first entry for the First Doctor (without the ref) as an example:

No	Title	Code	Episodes	Writer	Director	Original airdate
001	An Unearthly Child aka 100,000 BC aka The Tribe of Gum	A	"An Unearthly Child" "The Cave of Skulls" "The Forest of Fear" "The Firemaker"	Anthony Coburn (and C. E. Webber)	Waris Hussein	23 November 1963 30 November 1963 7 December 1963 14 December 1963

Cuddlyopedia (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the titled episodes list was created because the main list got really messy and really big when the episode titles were included. However, if you can find a way to do it without that happening, good luck to you. DonQuixote (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It would get very messy with Dalek's master plan 129.215.149.99 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Including the episode titles will require 117 rows (of text, not table rows), plus 10 for the missing episode notes; but the present table uses 54 rows, so that leaves a net 73. I count 328 rows in all the tables, so this means an additional 22%. A significant increase, but whether it is worth it to merge two articles is a question of judgement and taste. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that if you feel up to the work, the best thing might be to do up the full list in your user space so that people can compare and contrast with the current lists. On the other hand, that would be a lot of work for something that people might not, in the end, prefer, so I fully understand if you'd rather get us to commit first. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've drafted the First and Second Doctor tables with the proposed change and placed the result in my user sandbox for viewing and comment etc. I've also fiddled with the column widths to prevent additional line wraps on smaller screens (though I've had to guess at this, but will check it on my work screen tomorrow) and moved the notes on missing episodes to the 'Title' column from the 'Episodes' column as this reduces the length quite a bit. (I'll also put a note mentioning this discussion on the two article talk pages.) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks good, and I'd support the merge. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

i would suggest leaving the notes about missing episodes in the episode column rather than under the serial title 129.215.149.98 (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm easy either way. It would lengthen my sandbox version by 8 lines of text. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there are no objections within a week (or longer, if people think more time is appropriate), I'll make the change. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now made the change. I've also edited the 'titled episodes' article to replace it with a redirect to the 'serials' article (I think this is preferable to deleting the entire article) and changed any links to the former to direct ones (including by editing the doctor-who template and purging articles where that template appears in order to update it) except in a few talk and user pages where it seemed inappropriate. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Telegraph story on Children in Need [spoilers]

"Seven Dr. Whos set for reunion"

So, what do we do with this? Is a major broadsheet newspaper a reliable-enough source? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that we can note it with the wording "The Daily Telegraph has stated that..." if we also add "This has not been confirmed by the BBC or any other official source." However, we shouldn't start adding it to the list of serials or actors' filmographies, etc. And the creation of The Seven Doctors would definitely be premature at this stage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This appeared in the Mirror on Sunday too, but I seem to have lost my copy. I shall see if I can find a link - weebiloobil (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here we go: "All surviving Doctor Who actors to appear in one-off TV speciall" (sic) Rather intriguingly, they both use exactly the same quote for the BBC source - plagiarism? - weebiloobil (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Making matters more confusing, the BBC is now saying no such reunion is happning, but instead Children in Need will simply be airing a 2-minute preview of The Next Doctor[5]... 23skidoo (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Lists needing clean up

Hello, the featured list List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films currently has a clean up tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

I've taken care of this. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

False Information

Just to let people know, I came acroos King Gate (talk · contribs), who appears to be adding false information to articles here and here 86.160.163.183 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Adventures needs updating

Part 2 of "Dayof the Clown" has already been aired, it needs updating!--SGCommand (talk • contribs)

Be bold and start editing. DonQuixote (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Move of Doctor (Doctor Who) to The Doctor (Doctor Who)

So, I noticed this move on my watchlist almost an hour ago, and is it just me, or was there no discussion for this move? (I didn't see any on the talkpage, did I miss something above here?) Normally, I'd consider invoking the 'R' of WP:BRD, but... maybe it's worth a little discussion first? I'm not sure... I checked WP:THE, unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's completely clear on this situation. Personally, I wouldn't capitalize "The" in "the Doctor". Not sure what (if any) precise guidance might come from the BBC on this terminology; and I'm not seeing a guideline here on the project page. So... where does that leave us? umrguy 42 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The move is correct, as that is the correct character name. We capitalize "the" because, unless the lower case is idiosyncratic and would be maintained in all cases (i.e. iPod) we capitalize the first word of articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and reverted (before I saw your comment Phil) - I also noticed in the move logs that it's been moved back several times stating that the definite article is not needed per the MoS. Also, perusing the article, the only times I see "The Doctor" is at the beginning of sentences. If we're not listing it as "The Doctor" throughout the entire article, then it probably doesn't need to be The Doctor (Doctor Who)... can somebody with more time and energy (and who's not at work, perhaps) check the archives here or there, I suspect there's probably massive amounts of archived discussions of this issue. (For the record, I have no plan to edit war over this, but I do hope we can come to some consensus on it, whether to make the move, or keep the status quo.) Best, umrguy 42 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that he appears in the credits as "The Doctor" and not simply "Doctor," I would say that the analogy would be The Beatles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

*Tries to remember credits* Do they do the credits in all caps, though? And that crediting is not true for all versions of the Doctor - IIRC, especially in the first several Doctors, he was credited as "Doctor Who" or possibly even "Dr. Who". Hence my comment on how the BBC uses it on the official websites. umrguy 42 16:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This be very tricky. There are a discussions here, here, here and here, but there is no clear concensus. The MoS states that "A, an, and the are normally avoided as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless part of a proper noun (The Hague)", so it seems that is depends on whether we consider "The Doctor" to be a proper noun. Now, it has always been my opinion that the 'the' is not capitalised, and so it should not be in the title. However, when searching for any concensus on this, I find none, apart from the latter of my links above, where we seem to settle for "the Doctor", and a title of "Doctor (Doctor Who)". However, that was 3 years ago... - weebiloobil (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not surprised by that (I only got about 2 and a half years back in the talk archives here). In looking at the article, as I pointed out above, we generally use "the Doctor" and not "The Doctor" as well. (Same with "the Master", not "The Master".) Personal preference would be that "the Doctor" generally scans better, hence, it falls under the WP:THE MoS guide for articles to begin title names (as in, to not use them). But, again, that's my opinion. umrguy 42 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This has come up numerous times, usually after an undiscussed move of either (or both) the Doctor and Master articles. Generally, the consensus has been that the correct title is without the "The", and that "the" is not capitalized. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(← un-indent) I agree with umr's reasoning and Ckatz' conclusion. The article was at its current name for long, so silence implies consensus and all moves without discussion should be reverted immediately and the moving editor should discuss the issue instead. Edokter (talk · contribs) removed a move protection on it in July, but I have move-protected it again now because all moves were reverted and just caused unneeded disruption.

As for the issue itself, umr's reasoning is, as I said, correct. The Doctor is called "Doctor Who" or "Doctor" at different times and every actor had his own reason how to be credited. The article covers all incarnations and thus the common element, "Doctor", should be used and the "The" or "Who" are stylisations to be avoided. Regards So Why 10:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, bear in mind that any change will have an impact on the other character known as "The Doctor" -- Doctor (Star Trek). 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Carol Anne Ford Jewish and can I have a citation for that please

This would help with something.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Noel Clarke

Hi.

I saw the Noel Clarke article and thought it needs improving and possibly expanding. I've done some work to it but I feel it could be better. If anyone wants to help improve it, go ahead. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 10:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judgement of the Judoon

Heads up that Judgement of the Judoon is up for AFD. The nominator appears to be of the opinion that it's a novelisation, too. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider adding such discussions at the appropriate place on the project page. Regards So Why 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea until you pointed it out. I went looking and it's buried on an awfully long page. I recommend creating a sub-page for this like they do with Wikiproject Novels. Seriously I had no idea there was a section and bluntly didn't have time to read a short novel to find such a place when an article could have been deleted at any moment. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor speculation

Now that Tennant's made his announcement, expect a swarm of unsourced guesses and outright nonsense postings regarding who the Eleventh Doctor will be. Since realistically it won't be till spring or more likely summer before the new actor is unveiled, I recommend protecting some of the pages where such nonsense is likely to be posted, such as Tenth Doctor. Also, I suggest protecting Eleventh Doctor (which is currently a redirect to the main Doctor article) to prevent someone changing it into an article full of unsourced speculation and/or nonsense. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we cannot protect them unless some of that happens. But I am sure once edit-wars and mass-reverts happen, an admin will take care of it. I suggest using WP:RFPP if you notice that somewhere (or you may leave me a message directly). Regards So Why 17:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As an added note be aware of these speculations showing up on various actors pages. Stephen Fry has already been hit today. I know that there is no way to stop these but I think that they can always be removed per WP:CRYSTAL. I also know that each of us will have different actors on our watchlists so between us we may be able to keep the worst of the guesses off of our pages. MarnetteD | Talk 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Troughton

One of his kids edited the article recently to deny the smoking rumour - i just put in a clarification that it was David Brunt who claimed Pat was a chain-smoker and cancer survivor - of course since dead people can't sue for defamation, Brunt can say whatever he likes about Pat regardless of wether it's true or not. Paul Austin (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, we should have a citation for both parts of that claim (or delete both parts). I'm not familiar with David Brunt — why is his view noteworthy? Has he made the claim anywhere besides the OG Forum? If not, I suspect we really ought to delete it altogether. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

David was for many years the archivist of the Doctor Who Appreciation Society, working closely with Andrew Pixley. He's also written on-screen production notes for the DVDs, but I doubt his Troughton smoking business has been repeated anywhere verifiable. Angmering (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose it's best to delete the paragraph completely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging new series multi-episode story articles?

I know this has been discussed before, but I think it bears revisiting. The proposal is to merge the currently seperate articles for each episode of the new series multi-episode storylines into one. For example, instead of having seperate articles entitled Aliens of London and World War Three (Doctor Who), there would be one article called, for instance, Aliens of London and World War Three (no, this is not a title used by the BBC or other outside source, but then neither is 'World War Three (Doctor Who)'! - it's a Wikipedia article title). The benefit is to reduce the number of articles and eliminate a considerable amount of duplication. The combined article would also have a stronger claim to notability - though I agree that the current seperate articles have sufficient claims to notability in their own right, this view is not always shared amongst the wider Wikipedia community, and it is a good idea for such concerns to be preempted so far as possible. Additionally, it would make it consistent with our usage in List of Doctor Who serials, where we number the stories (said number appearing in the infobox). Against this is the fact that this would be a larger article (though still way under the recommended article size limit). This is mainly because of the merged plot section, but it would meet the recommended words per minute, and even here there is a fair amount of duplication. What do people think? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at the mock up that Thelb4 created last time I actually think it might work quite well. I was doubtful though after first reading the suggestion. --Lemming64 13:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed in some of the audios that there are two titles in one page with an & between them (Time Reef & A Perfect World, The Mind's Eye & Mission of the Viyrans, Exotron & Urban Myths) - this sort of think could be done with the individual episodes as well. 86.160.163.183 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this proposal is the question of what we would do with storylines like Utopia (Doctor Who), The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords, which some reliable sources treat as a three-part story and others treat as a one-parter followed by a two-parter. I'm also concerned that any title we use for a combined article would constitute original research. Following a pattern established by Big Finish isn't necessarily appropriate for the television series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with OR. The use of 'and' in a Wikipedia article title that discusses two closely related subjects considered most sensibly discussed on a common page rather than a page each is an acceptable naming convention (see WP:NAME#Use of "and"). In your example, as long as the article itself disclosed both points of view, there's no problem. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am against such proposals. The simplest of reasons is WP:SIZE. We are a very active WikiProject (thank gods), so DW articles tend to be very complex and full of details. Any merger will either a.) create overly long articles or b.) lose information, both of which is to be avoided. It is a nice idea for other shows where the articles are short or lack details but not for DW articles.

Also, those episodes aired separately and as Josiah points out, sometimes we do not even know if they should be considered multi-parters or not. To avoid such problems, that will result in OR to solve, we should just keep it as it is.

I do not consider the reasons named by Cuddlyopedia convincing. As he says, the articles already are notable of their own right. Production details and cultural references are mostly unique for each "part"-episode so I do not see any possibility for clearing much duplication. The article naming is currently not OR - because the "(Doctor Who)" part is just a disambiguation help and noone considers it part of the article name.

As for the "consistency"-argument, the old shows used a different kind of episodes system, creating serials and broadcasting them in parts. The new show creates episodes and most of them are single stories, self-contained, so we should create episode articles as such. Creating single articles for multiple episodes where we have no reason to do so other than those arguments named above is OR. Regards So Why 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is no problem. For instance, "Aliens of London" is currently 19,585 bytes and "World War Three" is 18,558, which would make a combined article at the most (assuming no reduction due to elimination of duplication) about 37.2KB, which puts it just in the 'may need to be divided' range and a long way off the 'probably should be divided' range (see WP:SIZE#A rule of thumb).

I covered OR in my answer to Josiah above; my example of World War Three (Doctor Who) was to point out that an article title discussing episodes or stories of Doctor Who need not precisely match the name of a story or episode.

I don't find such notability arguments convincing either, in and of themselves. My point is that others do find such arguments convincing, and it is wise to address them in advance.

We should be consistent; if we treat tham as a single story in the List of Doctor Who serials, then we should give them a single article. (Alternatively, we treat them as seperate in the List.) There is no OR here, just what is the most appropriate and convenient way of organising the material in a consistent manner without unnecessarily proliferating articles. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is not only something of kilobytes...it's about the overall length of the article, also comparing to other articles of the same kind and readability issues.

I do not think we need to be overly careful for notability reasons - as you said, notability has never been questioned for those articles and so there is no reason to think it will change now. And even if it does, we can still change it then...

As for consistency, we treat them as stories, not serials. With the 1st to 8th Doctors the serials were consisting of episodes but were just produced as one and all. The new series has another way of doing it, which can also be seen by the fact that each episode, even multi-part episodes, have their own production codes... Regards So Why 19:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to force these episodes together onto one page. The show is only on for thirteen week plus one special per year now. The episodes have a seperate production code, budget and production slot. Our having different pages for each episode is entirely consistent with many of todays programs pages here at wikip that have overarching plotlines that occur over multiple episodes - see Life on Mars and Lost for examples. I mean if we can have three pages for the 20+ minute episodes of the South Park "Imaginationland" trilogy we can certianly have seperate pages for this programme. MarnetteD | Talk 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, seems consensus is against me! :) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the idea, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and everything's just fine now. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Stolen Earth and Journey's End for instance are very different episodes, with very different production concepts, and different reviews etc. etc.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also largely about how the new series is actually presented to the public. Each episode is presented as distinctive entity even when two carry the same storyline (this is probably why we don't get titles like "Aliens of London Part 1"). And of course you get the confusion with episodes like Utopia - is it the first episode of a three part story, is it a trailer for a subsequent story (like Mission to the Unknown) or is it a stand-alone story that flows into the next one (like Frontier in Space)? This is a very different set-up from the classic series. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image sources

In light of the deletion of the companions image, we should try to make sure that any other collages (such as Image:10dr19.jpg) have specific source information for all the images contained therein. Does anyone have an encyclopedic knowledge of old BBC publicity photos? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FU Rationales

I've added 90 fair use rationales to image screenshots that were lacking them. That at least should prevent them from being tagged for speedy deletion. RMHED (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, RMHED. That's a huge public service. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:UNIT Stories

I have undone several edits on this article, which I felt were not correct. They can be seen in this edit summary. Obviously, what I think isn't gospel, so discussion on these points would be welcome. I reinstated Martha's TW episodes, as her appearance in the capacity of a UNIT employee makes it a minor appearance. I moved The Christmas Invasion back to a major appearance, as the UNIT base was a primary setting for the episode and the organisation had a crucial part. I also moved Turn Left back to major, as Rose is working with UNIT, the TARDIS is at a UNIT base, and UNIT are seen in several of the seperate events in the episode. Finally, I moved Journey's End to a minor appearance as, regardless of its impact to the story, UNIT was only seen briefly. U-Mos (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the IP who did three of those (my IP changes now and again). On the first, I do not think that the appearance of an individual makes an appearance of the orginisation. Take the third Doctor era - The Third Doctor and Jo were members of UNIT, but things like The Mutants would never be called UNIT stories (major or minor).

On the second, I did explain that on the basis of it being called a "background appearance" in DWM when they were talking about the return of UNIT in series 4. I think that there is a certain ammount of WP:OR as to what coutns as minor, so if a source calls it "minor" or "background" then there is something to go on.

With Turn Left, I was less sure as they do play more of a roll - so I don't mind either way.

And finally Journey's End - well that wasn't me, and I would agree that it was only minor as the orginisation didn't actually appear. 86.131.225.220 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon relfection, I find myself agreeing on the Torchwood episodes. I have removed them again now. That only really leaves us agreeing on The Christmas Invasion. Even if Sontaran Stratagem is the "real" return of UNIT, I don't think we should be using the term "minor" that lightly. I feel it really should be reserved for very brief appearances, such as in the episodes currently listed as minor. The story didn't focus on UNIT, but it was far more substantial than a passing cameo. U-Mos (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who audio releases split propsal

I have proposed a split of this list at it's talk page to split it into 3 lists. Etron81 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for input for discussion at The Next Doctor

There is a discussion, and no consensus yet, whether a new reliable source quoting David Morrissey allows us to change the character's name in the infobox. Please provide your input at the talk page. Regards So Why 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronology discussion re WP:SYNTH

There's a discussion on the Chronology talk page about whether that article violates WP:SYNTH, to which people may wish to contribute. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 23

Just to let everyone know, today, November 23rd, is the 45th aniversary of Doctor Who, and, as a celebration, Doctor Who missing episodes was featured on the main page. Well done everyone, and keep up the good work! - weebiloobil (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use screenshots in infoboxes (redux?)

I'm cutpasting an email I sent to User:Edokter about screenshots in infoboxes:

I was thinking about the images used in the episode articles. To be honest, they've got really crap rationales. I think we shouldn't rely just on the plot for a fair use image - we should use something where we can analyse the screenshot using as much information as we can.
Take, for example, Turn Left. It's a really crap rationale and caption compared to The Stolen Earth. Uploaders are really going the wrong way with rationales... and it looks stunted. I've thought of an image that would be immensely better: Rocco Colsanto being shipped off to a concentration camp. (This shot) This is for four reasons:

It accurately represents the dystopia in the plot as a result of the Doctor's lack of presence. (Plot)

It accurately represents the "life during wartime" plot that Davies wrote. (Production)

It was well received by critics (Reception)

It can provide analysis in comparing the plot's depiction of dystopia with World War II (Production and Reception)
You see how easily I did that? I think FPAS has a point, to be honest: write the content, and the image should follow. Not the other way around. Doing it that way stunts the image, and ultimately, the article.

I couldn't say anything without repeating myself. Does anyone want to help with sorting out images so they reflect the whole article, and not just the plot? We'd get a lot of anti-fair-use people off of our backs; they're reasonable people, as are most editors. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I can't post it on your talk page - Welcome back Sceptre! I don't know why wiki decided to ban one the best contributers. 129.215.149.99 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS Date changes

There's a whole thing going on now with changes to the Manual of Style regarding how dates should be used in citation templates. I've updated the "Cite serial" template to reflect it - essentially, dates will now no longer be wikilinked, and by default they'll appear as, for example, "24 November 2008", as opposed to "November 24, 2008". Which is better for us anyway, I think. Shouldn't need to do anything to any pages using that template, they should update automatically; just wanted to explain the change in appearance. Unfortunately "cite episode" is locked, so until somebody updates that the two templates will display conflicting date formats. --Brian Olsen (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oldest/Earliest

I don't know if this is worth putting in somewhere, but at the moment the earliest surviving and oldest living Doctor is Tom Baker - when he dies, the titles will be split again - the earliest surviving Doctor will be Peter Davison and the oldest living Doctor will be Colin Baker. Paul Austin (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What relevance does this have, am I missing something? --Lemming64 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord

The article The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment.

(weebiloobil [nominator] asked the Doctor Who WikiProject be notified when the GA review was completed.) – Whitehorse1 23:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Novelisations

Just having had a look at the Books section of each story - the numbering seems to be very confusing. The early books were numbered alphabetically, but is it wise to stick to this as a 'release number'? The War Games (No.70) is followed by Destiny of the Daleks (No.20). Surely you should just number them in the order they actually were released?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The numbering actually comes from Target, the publishers of the novelisations. Starting in 1983, Target decided to number the books, and from that point on the novelisations (new releases and reprints) had the number on their covers and spines. It's true that the numbering seems a bit haphazard (Target assigned the first lot alphabetically, and then assigned subsequent numbers as released), but the numbers are part of the books' identity. The "preceded by" and "followed by" fields account for the release order well enough, and List of Doctor Who novelisations#Publication details explains the situation with the numbers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. I still think you should ditch the numbering system as printed on the books, but it's only a minor point really. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release list reformat

There's a suggestion at the talk page for the DVD releases to split up the table by doctors for ease of navigation and editing. An example of what this woudl look like is in my sandbox. Please continue discussion on the talk page. Etron81 (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who (revived series)‎

Some eyes on this proposal would be welcome. --Rodhull andemu 23:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)