Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Amy's Choice (Doctor Who)

Can someone confirm what the Radio Times says about the Plot? I remember that the issue has the title but I don't remember it revealing the plot? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"It's been five long years since Amy travelled in the Tardis with the mysterious Doctor - and when he shows up again, on the eve of the birth of her first child, danger is not far behind him. Amy is faced with a heartbreaking choice that will change her life forever." This appears to be written by Steven Moffat - weebiloobil (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about Doctor Who: The Adventure Games

Just a question about Doctor Who: The Adventure Games. Although we already have an article about it and seeing as it's an episodic video game, will we also have articles about each episode once each have been released? --VitasV (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'd be inclined to say no unless the main article becomes overcrowded. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well seeing as each story will be different (first being Daleks and second story being Cybermen), if we were to have a full synopsis about each story, then this would probably need a seperate article. Also seeing as each have a different writer (first 3 and the 4th) then maybe in this case an exception?

Of course we should first wait till the first one comes out. --VitasV (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very au fait with gaming, or with Wikipedia's policies on game articles. Are there other "episodic video games" of this sort? If so, how are their articles handled? My inclination would be that since these are being produced as a single project (albeit one with four narratives), it should stay as one article. At the very least, as Alzarian16 suggests, it should start out as one article unless and until there are enough reliable secondary sources about individual episodes to justify separate articles. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
See Sam & Max Save the World. DonQuixote (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well with other episodic games, each episode doesn't have their own article. But seeing as this Doctor Who, wouldn't this maybe considered an exception as each story would most likely have heaps of coverage. --VitasV (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the level of coverage for individual episodes will be that great, or that the level of coverage for Doctor Who episodic games will be significantly different from the level of coverage of episodic games from LucasArts or some other noteworthy creator. Our default position should be consolidation into a single article for the game/games as a whole. If reliable sources do turn up with extensive coverage of individual episodes (for example, if Doctor Who Magazine or video game magazines review the episodes individually), we can then split out into individual articles; but we shouldn't assume that such sources will exist. If they do, we can always split. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

River Song and Companion (Doctor Who)

Can we have some discussion about River Song's inclusion in, and some more eyes on, Companion (Doctor Who)? Currently it lists her as a "future companion" based on the character's in-universe statements that she traveled with the Doctor in the future (even if we have no idea, whether anything she says is really true). Personally, I think she should not be in that list at the moment but I'd like to have some discussion on this question first before acting. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In-universe she's a "future companion". Out-of-universe, it's WP:CRYSTAL. The inclusion in, and creation of, that section was a compromise resulting from previous discussions. DonQuixote (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there any in-universe proof that she is? So far, I have only hear her say so, no one else. Regards SoWhy 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

According to our article about the character:

She is referred to in Doctor Who Confidential as a "companion-to-come"

The reference is given as:

The future is already written for both the Doctor and his adventurous companion-to-come" - Narration: Doctor Who Confidential, Series 4, Episode 9

which seems a reliable source. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a great source at all. First of all, it's not easy to access once broadcast and therefore is not easily verifiable by others - a source access issue. Secondly, I have no real faith it's Canon. Is there not a better quote we can pull from a better source, such as the Silence In The Library / Forest of the Dead episodes themselves? That would obviate the need for an outside reference. Etrigan (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, for Wikipedia purposes Doctor Who Confidential would be a better source than the episodes proper, because it's a secondary source as opposed to a primary source (albeit a secondary source closely associated with the primary source). It's counterintuitive, but for Wikipedia it's better to have a secondary source talking about the subject than something direct from the subject itself. The best thing would be if there's a reference to her as a "future companion" or some such in the press (previews, reviews, etc.) surrounding "Silence in the Library".
Finally, we should all try to remember that "Canon" is a) a highly dubious concept with regards to Doctor Who, and b) completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every page on a classic series story still includes a link to the defunct Outpost Gallifrey site, usually under the 'Reviews' section. Clicking on them leads to an error message. Could someone please remove them? I've taken some out but dont have the time to remove all 150+.

Incidentally, isn't it also about time we started including links to Amazon's DVD reviews where these exist? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since they are often important to the articles, maybe they can be replaced (by a bot?) with web archive links where such archives exist? Regards SoWhy 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. There are saeveral web archives, but I'm not sure where. Sceptre (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolutley right. I've just found them at http://web.archive.org/web/20070812190544/www.gallifreyone.com/reviews.php. Unfortunatley they're really slow to open, but it's good that they still exist. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you have it. Instead of removing them, we can rescue them from archive.org. We can use a bot to go through all those links and submit them to WebCite instead and then replace them with such links (this one for example loads much faster). I have asked ThaddeusB, who operates User:WebCiteBOT, whether he could do it for us. Regards SoWhy 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this action still open? Some pages are starting to lose their gallifreyone links, whether those constructed in {{OG}}, {{OG review}}, or plain {{cite web}} (see {{Doctor Who episode head}}). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thaddeus' bot appears to have been out of action for some time now, so I guess people are just removing the links in the absence of anything else happening. Perhaps we should add the archived links by hand? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello I am one of the editors who started removing them when I found that clicking on them lead to the 404 kind of page. I would be happy to add archived links but I have never dealt with them before. If someone could show me how to find them and how we should link to them it would be much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 11:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Glad to have you on board. If we're going to replace them manually it's probably easiest to do it like I did here (on The Claws of Axos) - replace the {{OG}} or {{OG review}} template with a link and the correct formatting to give the same end result. I chose to link directly to the archive as I couldn't make WebCite work properly, but that's probably an error on my part rather than anything else. The archives seem to be loading quicker now, so it may be OK just to use them directly. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rory a companion?

Time to re-open this I think. I was strongly against defining Rory as a companion a few days ago, but since then his appearance in not only episode 6, but 7-9 as well, has been confirmed. They're certainly not all modern day, although Amy's Choice remains a bit of a mystery, but I'd say this might be enough info to add him. Thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that one of the defining characteristics of a companion is "someone who accompanies the Doctor in his travels." Contrast the Brigadier. I'd wait and see, personally. We shouldn't be anticipating without citable sources anyway. Etrigan (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a note, that's a common characterstic, not a defining one. Definitions vary depending on the production team. DonQuixote (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
But that in itself is almost irrelevant. I'd suggest WP:DUCK applies, no? Etrigan (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a fair point, although we know he's in all these episodes we don't know for sure he travels with the Doctor during them. Well, we know he gets a trip in episode 6, it looks likely in 8-9 but looking likely doesn't hold any ground in wikipedia. And episode 7's synopsis suggests that Amy might not even travel with the Doctor after between it and episode 6, let alone Rory. I'm genuinely in two minds on this one. U-Mos (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
And the best thing to do (IMO) then is nothing. Yet. Otherwise you're right in WP:CRYSTAL territory. It'll come right in the end. Etrigan (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I said myself there's no rush when reverting him the other day. We'll see what occurs in the next few weeks. U-Mos (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:DUCK doesn't apply. It's falls more along the lines of a logical fallacy. Just because (for the sake of argument) all dogs are brown, it doesn't mean that all brown things are dogs. Similarly, just because "traveling in the TARDIS" is a common trait, it doesn't make it a definining trait--especially since other people who aren't companions have also "traveled in the TARDIS". Basically, as someone pointed out in another thread (sorry, can't remember where and by whom), fitting someone into a set criteria is original research. DonQuixote (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Found it: Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ? and it was by Edgepedia. DonQuixote (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
And Edgepedia is correct in that discussion. There's no hard-and-fast definition of what makes a character a companion, so we need to wait until a reliable source calls him that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that we are pretty bloody lax about what we define as reliable sources, too. Certainly not up to WP standards, either in terms of quality or verifiability. Etrigan (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
At least it's better than the problem of original research. The reliability of a source can be discussed on talk pages if someone questions it. DonQuixote (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The problem we have is that we have no way of verifying whether some of the sources we quote aren't merely conducting original research themselves. That worries me. Etrigan (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Original research" on Wikipedia means research that hasn't been previously published in a reliable source. If our sources are truly reliable, then it doesn't matter how they came up with the material — we cite them, and that's it. If they're dubious, then we shouldn't be citing them anyway. Which particular sources did you have in mind? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of gathering all the evidence in one place, from The Hungry Earth synopsis: "the TARDIS brings the Doctor, Amy and Rory..." U-Mos (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

After tonight's episode, I think it's clear that Rory is a companion in the next episode, having been invited along on their adventures. Not so much in this episode, maybe, but definitely the next one. AnemoneProjectors 18:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, up for putting him as companion for episodes 6-9 now for sure. Consensus? U-Mos (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Only time will tell if he ends up like Adam Mitchell / Mickey Smith. That's to say, we can't be sure until about episode 13. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
How was Adam any more of a companion that Rory already is? U-Mos (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
So far, Adam has more episodes. I understand that will change however. I never really liked Adam being categorised as a companion in the first place though. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
But we 100% know Rory has more episodes. I don't think we can really go against it any more. Why you think we can't be sure until episode 13 is beyond me. And in case it appears otherwise, I fully support Adam's companion status. U-Mos (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I can't be sure beyond tonight's episode - next week's might still be re-edited in the next few days (we had to wait until tonight to be sure that it's The Vampires of Venice). Ep 13 is simply another way of saying "end of season" - he might pop up in other episodes, like Jack Harkness did, or he might not, like Kamelion didn't (until they decided to write him out of the script - see DVD to be released next month). Also, after end of season, all the print sources should get updated.
Hold on, are you genuinely entertaining the possibility that they might re-edit next week's episode to remove Rory from it? Other episodes aside, we know he's in the next three episodes. We know he is travelling with the Doctor and Amy next week for definite. We know that "the TARDIS brings" all three of them to 2015 in a fortnight. That's a two-parter. That's a four episode arc for you, right there. U-Mos (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, let's get back to the point. Do we have reliable sources defining him as a companion? If not, we are down to watching each episode individually to see what happens, and unless you are actually involved in production (which I'm not), must therefore wait until broadcast. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's this What's on TV interview with Arthur Darville, which contains the exchange:
How does it feel to be a fully signed-up companion now?
"Great! Not many men get to travel with the Doctor so I feel very proud. Steven Moffat has written a great story for Rory."
Any good? Frickative 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we agree that we need a secondary source to say that Rory's a companion? And without this all we can say about he's appearing in the next four episodes ... is that's he's appearing in the next four episodes. We need someone reliable to say he's a companion. We can't define a companion because everyone defines this in different way and everyone has a different list of companions. After all, if he's a companion, someone's going to say this soon, and then we can edit everything. I'm sure we can wait, rather than place unsourced opinion/analysis into articles, which then needs to be taken out.
However what do people think about the reference above? Edgepedia (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the source is probably enough or at least very much confirming it. The actor is confirming that their character is now a companion - what more can we expect? Steven Moffat to come here and say "yes, he is"? I also found this which lists him as a companion as well. Regards SoWhy 09:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, time to add him in my book (although I'm pleasantly surprised a million IPs haven't already). U-Mos (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, they have! ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is use these links http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/120299/Doctor-Who-to-have-two-new-assistants/ and http://scifimafia.com/2010/02/doctor-who-the-tardis-will-be-getting-crowded-add-three-new-companions-and-%E2%80%A6-a-drunk-giraffe/ http://tv.sky.com/three-new-companions-for-doctor-who KnowIG 11:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)

I've continued this discussion here. Edgepedia (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Amy Pond image - Replacement of current image with promotional image

A new discussion has been initiated at Talk:Amy_Pond#Image_Discussion_Redux - all interested parties are invited to contribute. Exxolon (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Vampires of Venice and Vampire (Doctor Who)

The The Vampires of Venice section of Vampires in Doctor Who still doesn't appear to be updated. May I inquire as to why???--SGCommand 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no rush, and no need to ask in a rude way either, but feel free to do it youself if you like. AnemoneProjectors 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Three unused templates

I've found three unused templates:

I've converted them into Navbox format but they don't seem that useful and are not used. Shall I nominate them for deletion? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The creator seems to have offered two of the three for discussion regarding potential use, see here, but without much outcome. As regards Template:Doctor Who Robots and Cyborgs, the "What links here" feature suggests that this is also linked from Talk:List of creatures and aliens in Doctor Who/Archive2, but I don't see where exactly. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a non-brainer surely, I've nominated all three for speedy deletion. U-Mos (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Rory (again)

The rather massive discussion at Talk:The Vampires of Venice#Rory = companion ? is apparently getting somewhere at last, with (finally) a good source calling Rory a companion linked at the end of the section, under "Yet another source". I'm writing this here in hope that we can establish a consensus to now list him as a companion from episodes 6-9 of series 5. U-Mos (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who) AfD

I've put Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who) up for deletion, considering the fact he appeared in only two episodes. It seems fair that I tell you about this. View the discussion (and possibly vote on it) here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who) (2nd nomination) Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sea Devils on Template: UNIT stories - UNIT chronology sources anyone?

There is a discussion Template talk: UNIT stories#Sea Devils should be here that I hereby request the Doctor Who WikiProject people take an interest in. (I asked for a Third Party Opinion and received a recommendation to take it here.) Please do so as soon as possible. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the Sources section for the more productive end of the discussion. Any reliable UNIT chronologies would be much appreciated as sources. U-Mos (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

Hello, I am a member with WikiProject Family Guy. A recent episode of Family Guy aired on BBC Three, and I was wondering if anyone could help me in regards to whether or not viewership ratings are released in the United Kingdom. As I am unfamiliar with this subject as it pertains outside of the United States, I was hoping an experienced user from the UK here could help another project. Thanks. Gage (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the infamous abortion episode, yes? Well, ratings are released every week from BARB, generally nine days after the end of the week (so, ratings for 14–20 June will be released on the 29th). The website is kind of hard to navigate, though; hence, we generally use Gallifrey Base's news posts, as they collate the information for us. Generally, BBC3 ratings are to BBC1 ratings as USA Network is to NBC, adjusted for audience sizes; hence, an audience of around a million on BBC3, generally, is considered good. Sceptre (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Correct, the episode I am specifically referring to is Partial Terms of Endearment. Alright, I will attempt to locate the ratings once they are released, thank you for your help. Gage (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
A repeat of the episode is scheduled for the early hours of Sunday 27 June, which might affect the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In what way? Gage (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the actual mechanics of ratings calculation; but would it be a combined total for the two broadcasts? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't think so, though I'm only familiar with how Nielsen ratings are determined in the United States. Gage (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, according to Sceptre, the ratings would be from June 14-20, and not 20-27, so there shouldn't be any issues, I believe. Gage (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Ratings generally don't count repeats with the initial showing. Sceptre (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Create article for Earth

Could we please create an article for Earth titled Earth (Doctor Who) (ignore the redirect)? I believe an article like this should be created as it's a planet that a large majority of the series revolves around. Simply on the article about it's relevance in the series, a brief timeline, features, specific geography etc. I think it's notable to have it's own article, similar to that like the article Mars (Doctor Who). --VitasV (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be appropriate at the Doctor Who wiki, but here it would be fancruft. --Ckatzchatspy 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with such a harsh response but I agree with the core of it: It may not be fancruft but I doubt you can find enough reliable, third-party sources to justify such an article. Unlike with alien planets, most sources don't talk about Earth as a setting. Regards SoWhy 06:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. Well what about the Moon? Article entitled Moon (Doctor Who) or The Moon (Doctor Who). When ever a Doctor Who story has been written involving the moon, it has always been said on the Moon. Plus the events on it like with the Silurians fearing it would destroy the Earth, the race which used to inhabit it and the events in Imperial Moon. The story The Seeds of Death where the Ice Warriors invade the T-Mat vital relay station on the Moon. The story The Moonbase where the Cybermen invade the weather tracking and managing station. In The Invasion (Doctor Who) where the Cybermen ship hides behind the dark side of the Moon. Smith and Jones where the hospital gets transported there by the Judoon and I guess other stories. Also the Human penal colony as seen in Frontier in Space and mentioned in Bad Wolf. So then could we create an article about the Moon in the Doctor Who sense? --VitasV (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Do any non-in-universe sources cover the moon as a setting itself (and not just what is happening on it)? Regards SoWhy 08:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I'll start searching. Hopefully someone could also help find some. --VitasV (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Ckatz, the Earth in fiction article itself it a pretty sprawling mess of plot reiterations from various franchises. What would be the purpose of an article relating to the Earth as featured in this franchise, other than to reiterate the plot of any story that took place there? WikiuserNI (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who Restoration Team questions

Hello to the members of the project. I am wondering of any of you know anything about what is happening with the "Doctor Who Restoration Team". Updates on their website [1] stopped sometime in March. I have also noticed that there have been eleven serials from the classic series released so far this year but there are only three (not counting the Revisitations box set) scheduled for upcoming release. Has something happened to them? Are they still in charge of cleaning up the classic series for DVD release? If not we should probably mention something about this on the Doctor Who DVD releases article. I know that most of you are quicker at internet searches than I am so any info that you can find out will be appreciated. Thanks ahead of time for your efforts in this matter. MarnetteD | Talk 20:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You might recall that just over a year ago, their forum was taken down because of the increasing levels of comments like "why was xxx not included as an extra on yyy? It's far better than zzz, which was included, and which is utter pants." Perhaps they've been getting negative comment emailed directly and it's p*ssed them off? In any case they're under no obligation to keep the website up to date; maybe the increased release rate means that they're too busy to. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not know about the stuff from last year so thanks for making me aware of it. My concern was that they might be splitting up as they have gotten older or that the BBC might be moving the making of the DVD's in house. Either of these might merit inclusion in our articles but since both are guesses on my part I thought that I would check with those of you better informed than I am. I hope that I am wrong about this and that they get to finish their work on the classic series. thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 20:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Images for discussion

After exhaustive discussion it's been agreed to seek the consensus of the Doctor Who Wikiproject as to whether the two images currently being used below are appropiate for inclusion in the relevant articles. I will abide by the consensus reached. Exxolon (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that I agreed to any such thing. In particular, I did not agree to your "compromise" of my withdrawing the deletion nominations in exchange for you seeking 'neutral' discussion here! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to discontinue contributing to this discussion as I have limited internet access/time and would prefer to be engaging in more productive activities here and it's not getting anywhere. I'll leave it to the rest of the community to evaluate everything and make a decision on these images, I will not be commenting further. Exxolon (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Eknodine.png currently being used in the article Amy's Choice (Doctor Who)

File:Vampire-queen.jpg currently being used in the article The Vampires of Venice

Silurian-Sea Devil merger

Can everyone please weigh in at Talk:Silurian_(Doctor_Who)#Merge Sea Devils into Silurian? Thanks.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Beep the Meep

I don't think this character's notable enough for a separate article. What would anyone say about merging it into List of Doctor Who villains? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Further unmade movies?

Reading here an article on Digital Joural about the speculations of a DW movie with Depp as the Doctor.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/294114
put aside the whole thing about Depp, at the bottom of the article it list titles of unmade Doctor Who movies titled "The Last of the Time Lords", "The Jewels of Time" and "Fathers and Brothers". Now I just wondered whether these were true and if so can we have them added to the List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films article and if possible any other info like a story outline to it? (I would've added this discussion onto that article's talk page but hardly anyone answers there.) --VitasV (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

See The Nth Doctor by Lofficier. It's a book about the unmade movies and includes the above. DonQuixote (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nightmare Man (The Sarah Jane Adventures)

The Nightmare Man (The Sarah Jane Adventures) I don't think there's enough info for this page to exist yet - unless there's sources out there that I don't know about... Etron81 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I redirected it to List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials#Series 4 (2010) for the time being, we can create the page later when needed. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Canoncity

It's quite common to see "The canonicity X, as with other Doctor Who spin-off media, is unclear", which is actually inaccurate.

Russel T Davies has said in both Doctor Who Monthly and his book, The Writer's Tale, that their is no Doctor Who Canon. Moffat has said, publically at the San Diego comic-con, that their is no Doctor Who Canon. Given this, does anyone mind if I write an article on the unique status of Doctor Who and it's canon policy? EdFortune (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it would even be possible to write an article based on that. Anything other than those two quotes would just be original research on your part. A small section on the main article page would be more appropriate. Ωphois 16:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see how such an article would go without being original research, but it'd be tricky to pull off (I can't find a source for when the term 'canon' started getting used, but it was certainly after 1963.) You're right though, I'll add something to the main who article. EdFortune (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

there's also Whoniverse#Inclusion_and_continuity. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Essentially, I think as the TV series' increasing references to spin-off media suggest, "everything is canon except for when it's not." To avoid the problem, the "==Appearances==/===Television====/===Literature===/===Audio drama===" format accurately side-steps the continuity quagmire. Torchwood is an example where the novels, audio dramas, and online content all appear to be equally as valid as the TV show.~ZytheTalk to me!19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Vampire (Doctor Who) nominated for deletion

Informing the project that Vampire (Doctor Who) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampire (Doctor Who). Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who) nominated for deletion.

Just to let the project know that I've listed 2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who) for deletion. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Thanks. Maccy69 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

sources for Vanessa Bishop

The "sourcing unsourced BLPs" project is currently plowing through a backlog from April 2008 trying to find sources, upgrade articles, etc., I've been unable to find much on-line that's both secondary and reliable about Vanessa. Google Books makes me think that there may be a couple books that refer to her, any help providing reliable sourcing for that article (before the bulldozer hits that article) appreciated. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps she's just not notable enough. I found 6 links from articles (5 of which relate to the short stories) and an entry on disambig page for her rumoured pseudonym. Trying some googles searches mostly brought me back to wikipedia or clones thereof. I'm wondering, would her article pass an AfD, and if not, what would be the loss? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding almost nothing for this. If this doesn't give any significant coverage in reliable sources I don't know what will. She has a page on Doctor Who Wiki, so the information wouldn't be completely lost if we decided to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The bylines of all her columns and stories count as reliable sources that she wrote them. To be honest, I don't see anything in the article that couldn't be directly sourced by a reference to the columns in question (except maybe the pseudonym). So I don't see an unsourced BLP problem. As for notability, that has different criteria -- third party mentions etc. In the context of fandom, Ness Bishop perhaps was quite significant as the features editor of the revived fanzine "Skaro" in the early 1990s, at a time when there weren't an awful lot of female fans writing for such zines. But that may be a bit parochial, if there were an AfD. On the other hand, at least as of now, there isn't an AfD. I suppose it depends how significant we think columnists and short story writers are. Jheald (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments, folks. As I'm more concerned at the moment with sourcing for BLP issues, I think that Jheald's suggestion is close enough for the task at hand.... a byline'd note does source for BLP purposes the contribution, and moves the article out of path the bulldozer. (By the way, I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds, I'm part of that bulldozer ... I just try hard to find relevant sources before I dig out the delete button.  ;) Again, much appreciated! --j⚛e deckertalk 13:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It's possible to get an absolutely unrefd BLP to fully-refd with very little loss of content; look what three of us managed in two days (mostly sqeezed into 5 hrs). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Great work! --j⚛e deckertalk 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Companion navigational templates

As the River Song template has been brought up above, I've decided to finally bring up something that has bugged me for a long long time about the companion navigational templates. Navigation templates are supposed to link articles. I don't see any reason to say which episodes (etc) particular companions appeared in, or who they appeared alongside. That's not what navigation templates are supposed to be used for. So I have created some examples in my userspace and would propose that we change the existing {{Doctor Who companions}} template and simply use this one and get rid of the Doctor-specific ones. (Also the existing templates look awful when they are collapsed.) I personally favour version 3. AnemoneProjectors 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Version 2 is the clearest as to which "off-screen" companions are eligible for inclusion (the ones from when there was no TV series, it suggests). Otherwise the template will become a hotbed for listing Majenta Pryces and whatnot.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Frobisher? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Version 1 is probaly my favourite. However, I would support introducing any of the three as they're all better than the current design. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer version 1 out of the three. But, and apparently I may be in the minority with this, I think the current versions are excellent and am in favour of them staying as they are. They give more detailed information in an aesthetically pleasing and clear way, and do not waste space. U-Mos (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Any of the alternatives are superior as navboxes; the current ones are not clear - they are trying to do too much and therfore failing. I have done something along similar lines (here User:GraemeLeggett/sandbox) using individual doctor templates (2 illustrated). This works with the guidance that links should be between related articles. With individual Doctors you can constrain the list to those related; eg there is 40 years between Steven Taylor and Rose - apart from the fact they both journeyed with the Doctor how are they thematically linked? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I like Version 3 the best, but I wouldn't want to remove the Doctor-specific templates -- just to use this one for overviews. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else? I think first we should get a consensus on whether to keep or replace the existing templates before deciding how to present any new template. It's just that the existing templates aren't what navigation templates are meant to be used for. AnemoneProjectors 00:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
In practice I use them as episode-to-episode navigation, and the cast of the episode is a handy identifier, too. For a show like Doctor Who with the shifting lineup, I don't think the existing templates are ugly. In fact they're tidy and neat, and they do two things at once.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If episode navigation is required, I would suggest you split the functions so that you have a "companion episode" navigation and a "companion article" navigation box. For episode navigation, the current templates don't actually work - for example with {{Tenthdoctorcompanions}} you can't navigate to The Impossible Planet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Torchwood India Picture

Should we have a picture of Torchwood India on the Torchwood Institute article i could only find 2 pictures but they are from the BBC would fair use be ok for this purpose to illustrate what Torchwood India look like the link are below let me know what you think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00lg4nq_640_360.jpg

http://www.bbcshop.com/Science-Fiction/Torchwood-The-Golden-Age/invt/9781408426654&temp=enlarged&layout=empty

Sfxprefects (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be merely decorative, no?~ZytheTalk to me! 18:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Torchwood (The New World)

Torchwood (The New World) this page has been created - this should me moved or deleted, as it should be The New World (Torchwood), but I don't think there's enough info for it's own page yet... Etron81 (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Doctorwhospecialbox

{{Doctorwhospecialbox}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 9 for anyone interested. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fancruft

In the last hour and a half there has been a lot of edit/revert happening at The Sontaran Experiment, Genesis of the Daleks, The Five Doctors and their talk pages. Most of it concerns fancruft, and what is acceptable in a "continuity" section.

It seems to me that many such articles, not just these three, have a lot of unreferenced information, not just in the "Continuity" sections, but all over the place; and that WP:V and WP:NOR are not being applied consistently. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of what is in there could go. We also do not need new ones being added to the articles. As I stated on at least one of the talk pages the time and money constraints that the Classic series was made under lead to all sorts of continuity errors. They really are non notable for an encyclopedia. They could easily go on the Dr Who wikia which does not have the same guidelines that Wikipedia does. Please feel free to begin their removal and thanks for bringing this up. MarnetteD | Talk 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
We should be working harder to source what content we do have. If we removed all unsourced material we would have some very thin articles. I believe much of what we do have could be easily sourced. Howe, Stammers and Walker and Haining produced enough books on the "Classic" era in their time GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. There's much literature about both eras. We should list these in the See Also section, and in the MOS if they're not there as well. Sceptre (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added some written sources to the "see also" (ahead of the websites). Also ut a line through Gallifreyone as that's not much use for the moment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Gallifreyone was discussed here, where it was discovered that the content is still available at an archive site. We were supposed to be fixing them, either manually or by bot, but we never got round to it... Alzarian16 (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the fan reviews are only External links so there's no great rush on those, is there? the episode guides don't give sources so they might well fail as not RS.GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Sweet AfD

Article on actor Daniel Sweet has been sent to AfD. Article says he's in the 6th series of Dr Who, so I wondered whether anyone here might like to take an interest.--Plad2 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making us aware of this. As far as I know the sixth season is still in the planning stages and no guest casting has occurred. The article is flimsy at best and may be a hoax or a kid doing a little self promotion. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

River Song template

I considered it might be useful to have a small navbox showing River Song's adventures in the order she lives them, especially when inevitably it starts being less linear than further back in time each appearance. So here it is. {{River Song chronology}} I think it's a nice addition. If a place in River's own chronology is ever unclear a second list could be created for episodes that can't be definitely placed. U-Mos (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't call for its deletion. It has slightly more value than those awful "Dalek televison stories" templates.~ZytheTalk to me! 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoever compiles this must be very careful not to stray into WP:OR territory. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit in having such a template. If it is meant to be one like the "Daleks appear in"-templates, I would think it pointless but wouldn't have a problem with it appearing on every episode including River Song but it is more ambitious and therefore fails. It also tries to list the River episodes according to her timeline which is not the purpose of a navigation template. IMHO the purpose is better served by a table in the River Song (Doctor Who) article and has no business in being inserted into every episode article.
Furthermore, the template contained one item that isn't an episode and has no article. Navigation templates are for linking articles, not for listing things.
Regards, Str1977 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. This isn't what navigation templates are for (it's the same reason I don't like the companion navboxes but I've never been able to put into words how I feel about them so have never said anything). AnemoneProjectors 20:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The more I look at this template, the more I want to TfD it. However, I like U-Mos and don't want it to seem offensive. So I figured we'd discuss it here. What does this template do that the River Song article itself doesn't represent? And as it's relevant to the plot, each of the episode articles themselves briefly (should) summarise the chronologies (e.g., This is the first appearance of River Song [plot], This appearance of River Song would appear to be earlier in her personal chronology than those of previous episodes...). If they carry on with the pattern, then a simple statement about inversely proportionate chronologies would make sense too.~ZytheTalk to me! 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The template serves no additional purpose other than pointing readers reading e.g. Silence in the Library to other episodes involving River Song. However, the episode articles should not briefly summarise the River Song chronology but only give such information if it is relevant to the plot (e.g. The Doctor encounters RS whom he last met in X). The full relative chronology is relevant for River's article, not for all the episodes. They'll probably carry on with the inverted pattern but for a while but IMHO the "River kills Doctor"-episode will probably be the last.
So I wouldn't oppose the deletion of the template, as thus far there are only six episode in contrast to the very many Dalek episodes. 13:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for discussing this. All I can really say is I thought this it would be a useful addition to be able to trace River's chronology via this template, rather than have it stuck in prose that could potentially get very confusing with later episodes. I am strongly against having a template for River akin to {{Dalek stories}} etc, as I believe it completely unnecessary to do that with a recurring character (excepting the Master). And I don't believe anyone who has written here feels that necessary either. So I am going to revert the template to fulfil its original purpose, and if anyone wishes to TfD it then I won't meet then I'll state my case and not contest the result. U-Mos (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the template; it's helpful to someone looking at the character (and why don't we have one for the master). However, I think we are going to get unstuck trying to sequence this to River Song's personal timeline. At the moment with three stories we seem to be confident that we are seeing her in reverse order (although I could concieve of other possiblities ... like in Flesh and Stone she knew to mention the Pandorica from her book). However, this could get very uncertain next series. Also we seem to be taking River's word on this, and I get the feeling she's not altogether to be trusted. I would argue for out-of-universe order, but not too strongly but I feel we'll get there anyway. Edgepedia (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As you say, River is not a WP:RS, but we must stay away from carrying out our own research. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't do this. Please, don't act as things like "reliable sources" and "original research" come into play here. If we keep this template, it should be like any other "character X in Doctor Who" template, i.e. list all the episodes in the order they were broadcast. That is not "out-of-universe order", as it is also the timeline of the series, i.e. from the Doctor's perspective.
When it comes to describing the different time lines in the article, we however must take River's words (alongside with any other information) into account).
And the information needn't be stuck in prose but is properly presented in the table. Str1977 (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
If they are purely in broadcast order (or even in alphabetical order), that's fine. What I don't want to happen is us trying to place them in order of River's personal timeline. Wikipedia is not a fan site. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, these are all fair points. If you are that strongly against the template in this form then nominate it for deletion. U-Mos (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Faction Paradox

We have a whole raft of unsourced articles connected to Faction Paradox. If we can't source them, best to merge them or AFD them? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific with examples? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Of the City of the Saved... publisher page and a couple of reviews by fan sites as ELs, no inline citations.
  • Warlords of Utopia publisher page and a couple of reviews by fan sites as ELs, no inline citations.
  • Warring States (novel) publisher page and a couple of reviews by fan sites as ELs, no inline citations.
  • Erasing Sherlock publisher page and a couple of reviews by fan sites as ELs, no inline citations.
  • Newtons Sleep publisher page and a couple of reviews by fan sites as ELs, no inline citations.
  • The Book of the War publisher page and a couple of reviews by fan sites as ELs, no inline citations.

I just don't see any coverage in RS in these articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Best to run through them all and tidy them up and tag them for missing cites/notability in the short term (talking a fortnight or so) then PROD the lot as a related job. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
We could redirect them to Faction Paradox instead of deleting if we can't find any sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Faction Paradox has, er, let me see... one reference - and that's a blog. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Then you have Authors of each of these novels, most of them are unsourced. Seems to be a sprawling garden of unsourced article, everyway I click takes me to a different unsourced article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Just keep tagging, the better these articles are flagged for needing attention the more likely other editors will notice and act to make improvements. Anything really stubby might be worth flagging for notability. eg a single work author. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Novelisations: separate articles, or keep with broadcast serial?

I note that Doctor Who - The Revenge of the Cybermen has recently been created. What does the project think of this idea of separate articles for the novelisations? To me, it's WP:CFORK. The editor who created it is clearly aware of the existing article Revenge of the Cybermen, since he's edited it and has also linked to it from Doctor Who - The Revenge of the Cybermen. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just that, but isn't the fact that a TV episode has been novelised part of what makes the episode interesting from a real-world point of view? All the relevant discussion should bring out what the new medium elucidates or clarifies, or is forced to omit, etc. How popular is it in comparison to other novelisations? Has it been gone out of print, back into print? Neither the episode nor novelisation are inherently notable by virtue of being just a story.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
There is plenty of room in the novelisation section of the main article for each serial to handle anything that might be notable. This looks to be an enthusiastic fan. There is always the danger that the enthusiasm may override the desire to learn wikipolicies. I hope that is not the case here but, so far, the articles the editor has started all have problems. Best of luck to anyone who wishes to mentor this editor. MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Since the novelisations are for the most part bare adaptations of the broadcast (unlike the reverse case of a film made from a book) I would keep them within the serial article. So yes agree it is content forking. To that end I have redirected it back to the serial and will now inform the editor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I've lest a message on the editors talkpage explaining why I did what I did. I have left it open for them to revert my redirect if they disagree (I hope noone will undo the revert if they do - don't bite etc) and suggested more discussion here. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see this edit made recently [2]. We are now straying into fan synthesis. I will leave it alone but others may want to fill them in on the benefits of reading wiki guidelines before proceeding with editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Episode durations

Where there is a discrepancy between sources regarding episode durations, which should be selected? The specific case is Frontier in Space episode 1 where of the three refs, Outpost Gallifrey is dead; Doctor Who Reference Guide has 23:27; but Shannon Sullivan has 23:17. Personally, I'd go with 23:17 because this agrees with Howe, David J.; Walker, Stephen James (1996). Doctor Who The Handbook - The Third Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 126. ISBN 0 426 20486 7.. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't get at my dvd's at the moment as I am out of town but if someone can throw this episode on that should give us a n answer. Until then "The Doctor Who Handbook" is usually accurate. The only caveat to that is how did they get there numbers. If BBC documentation than actual run time might vary slightly. If VHS run time then there would be variations as VHS time counters have some variation by model. They wouldn't have had DVD's when they wrote there books but again the run time might have slight variations. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Go with the book. Doctor Wwho Reference Guide doesn't give sources so doesn't count as reliable. Shannon Sullivan gives sources which include the Third Doctor handbook, so it would be a better reference to use, but if you have the book then you you've moved up a step in source quality and can give a page number. I'll be bold here and suggest that anytime you see the Doctor Who Reference Guide and/or Gallifreyone cited as sources alongside Shannon Sullivan, you can probably delete two of the cites as not RS, and if you have the books to hand cited by Shannon Sullivan you can replace that reference with one to the book in question with page no.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well... my DVD player clocks it as 23:21 which is part way between the two. I do believe, however, that the intention of these boxes is to show the original broadcast duration, not any VHS or DVD timings. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Be aware that the times in "The Doctor Who Handbook" are not necessarily 100% accurate to the original run times. I think that Howe et al were allowed to research in the Beeb's paperwork (any of you who know more please update this) but we have no idea what, who or how those numbers were decided upon. The few easter eggs (anyone else notice they stopped those about a year ago?) that we've had on the earlier DVD's show a running clock as they countdown to transmission. Thus someone writing down info while keeping an eye on the clock could be off by a few of seconds. Don't get me wrong I am not asking for changes from the numbers quoted in their books. It would also be interesting to know when time stamping on videotape became possible. GraemeLeggett's suggestion about sources is sound and thanks for your work on this Redrose64. MarnetteD | Talk 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think easter eggs have stopped... there's one on The Dominators; and the one on Planet of Fire is of four count-in clocks - two are of the blackboard type, two electronically generated. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I guess they just aren't putting the fact that the DVD cover or the pamphlet anymore. I had stopped looking for them since I didn't find them on several of the earlier releases this year. The region two releases (which a region free DVD player allow me to enjoy) have that menu for the visually impaired and that usually lists them without having to search for them so I will take a look when I get back home. Thanks very much for letting me know about them! MarnetteD | Talk 15:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Silver Nemesis fan consternation

If anyone can help could we please get more eyes at Silver Nemesis. A rotating set of IP's wants to put in the fans did not like the fact that the DVD did not have the extended version of this serial that the VHS did. I have removed this as did Don Quixote. I have tried to explain that fan forums are not reliable sources but I am not getting through and then the IP can change which means that they may not see it. We might need to semiprotect the page as well. As soon as I am done here I will post an item on the SN talk page. Thus, if you feel that this edit is okay we can get consensus and go from there. Any help will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal. In fact, we should work on changing the synopsis to reflect the broadcast version anyway. There seems to be a lot of IP users determined to remove random sections from these articles, which have otherwise benefited from additions and corrections over the last few days. Revenge of the Cybermen (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Possibly because those recent additions were entirely unsourced - so they were within their rights per the verifiability policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
See also the fancruft section above that Redrose64 started. There's a lot in the classic Who articles that comes under a general "continuity" section. Really it's all fan based speculation. Further thoughts on what the writers intended should ideally come from a third party source (as Redrose pointed out above) and show a bit more relevance to the article subject. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr Tyler

Would anyone with time please take a look at this new article created by an enthusiast. As you will be aware it is about a character who only appeared in The Three Doctors. The editor Mehdioa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written the article with the fanciful notion that the character is related to Rose and Pete Tyler. A fun idea but not really encyclopedic. I have removed the speculation about this from the other articles that it was placed in but I am heading out the door so I thought that I would let other members of the project decide whether the article should be listed at AFD or tagged with multiple problems like the Pete Tyler article is. Thanks for your time in this. MarnetteD | Talk 16:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been redirected to the episode, correctly in my opinion. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Request move

Just a request to change the articles name Destiny of the Doctors to be moved to Doctor Who: Destiny of the Doctors (ignore the redirect). Just that this being a video game and not a single tv, audio or novel story that it should have Doctor Who in the front of it's name like many video games based on a franchise. Also all other Doctor Who video games go through this same naming style (excluding Dalek Attack as that was just released titled as Dalek Attack). --Victory93 (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Rory in series 6/7

The last couple of days have given us some gentle but seemingly firm indications that Arthur Darvill will continue as Rory for at least next year's first run of DW episodes. First is this, where Steven Moffat says that the mid-series cliffhanger will change everything for the Doctor, Amy and Rory. Then comes Neil Gaiman's journal entry from today, where he mentions "Arthur". Are these good enough sources to mention at Rory Williams and List of Doctor Who serials? U-Mos (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that the former (Moffat speaking about Rory in S6) is perfectly adequate. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Eh? Where does he mention Rory in that first link?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In the video, around 1:05: "will change everything for the Doctor and Amy and Rory." U-Mos (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks -- I just read the transcription. Sorry for the confusion!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead and Buried (Bernice Summerfield)

I created an article for the new animated webcast Dead and Buried (Bernice Summerfield). If anyone can please help to improve it. --Victory93 (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that a fair number of DW-related articles have had the {{TardisIndexFile}} template added to the "External links" section; this links to the relevant page of the Doctor Who Wiki. How does this stand with regard to WP:ELNO item 12? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the TARDIS wikia has a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", so it meets the exclusion criterium of WP:ELNO #12. — Edokter • Talk • 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, it is one of the few external wikis I would include as that exception. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. With more than 18k articles and a substantial number of active editors, it's most likely one of those external wikis that meet the exception of ELNO. I'd say it's rather like Wookieepedia than your standard fan-wiki. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Cancelled Nazi story?

Someone has created an article titled Doctor Who and the Nazis detailing about an unmade Second Doctor story outline written by Brian Hayles (who wrote The Celestial Toymaker, The Smugglers, The Ice Warriors, The Seeds of Death, The Curse of Peladon and The Monster of Peladon) featuring Nazis. The article says it kept being rejected cause was still so soon after World War II. If this is true, suggest to merge it to the article List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. Can we find any reliable sources that might verify this either any issues of DWM or a reference book? --Victory93 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is mention on page 13 of this file (do a search for Nazi on the loaded page) from a Canadian fan site. It mentions that the story was dropped as Hayles had other stories to work on.
Other than this, the DW and the Nazis article is nothing more than mention of when the Nazis appeared in other stories, a merge might be most appropriate if a more reliable source than the fan site can be found (assuming, as I haven't browsed that file in detail, that it's not a RS). WikiuserNI (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It's on this page. Sceptre (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree we should merge this, but it would be nice to have a more reliable source before we do. Sceptre's link says that it was mentioned in Doctor Who Magazine issue 321 and DWM Special Edition issue 7. Does anyone have a copy of either of these? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't even merge, just PROD. Brian Hayles got as far as the storyline before it was dropped. At least with other stories on the unmade page, something tangible came of them eg a script written,. not used but later published. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:PROD it. It's all unreferenced WP:OR. Also, I note that as with several other article-space pages created by Revenge of the Cybermen (talk · contribs), a backup copy has been made in user space in case of deletion - that might need to go to WP:MFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It hath been PRODded. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who audio stories

Should Wikipedia really have all those articles on Doctor Who audio stories/radio dramas? Do they meet the requirements to merit their own article? Or are they just fancruft? If they don't meet the requirements, the articles may be removed. NotARealWord (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well rather than complaining, you could actually help by adding to the articles the plot of the stories and any additional information if it's not too much trouble. --Victory93 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
What Victory93 said. They are just as notable as Doctor Who novels if not more so since the past Doctors/companions/etc. reprise their roles.--DrWho42 (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
For others reading this - the ones highlighted by are NotARealWord are Scorpius (Doctor Who audio), Sword of Orion, and Cryptobiosis (audio drama) GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, Victory93, the plot of stories don't make them notable or otherwise. I'm asking about the presence of articles, not their quality. I'm okay with individual Doctor Who episodes getting articles of their own because that's the main DW media. The audio plays are spinoff material, so I'm not sure of their notability, if they each deserve their own article, or should be merge into lists like "List of Fifth Doctor audio stories" an so on. NotARealWord (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Notability is based on coverage. The audio serials have received some coverage, but it's possibly borderline for notability. To take one example, Sword of Orion links to [3], [4] and [5], and some googling gave me[6], [7] and [8] as well. Would that be considered enough for an article to be based on? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're convinced that's enough, you can remove the "subject might not obey notability guidelines" tags. Also, (if that's relevant) "doctor who +cryptobiosis" gets fewer Google results than the other audio plays I tagged. NotARealWord (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Doctor Who episode & imdb param

Just wondering if there really should be a parameter in the {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}} template for including a link to the imdb website. The parameter was removed from {{Infobox film}} in 2009 in favour of just having a link in the external links section of the article. Would anyone object to a similar change being made to {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}} ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense, I believe IMDB fails as RS. If there was a infobox weblink at all, it could/should be a link to somewhere at the Beeb.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with both. Linking to a semi-unreliable site at the top of the page instead of the bottom isn't the best idea ever. For the first eight doctors it may be worth linking to the BBC's classic series episode guides in the infobox as these have far more useful information and are more reliable. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Better to link to the BBC's site instead. Sceptre (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added a |classic_bbc= parameter and put an example on Spearhead from Space. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Tested; looks good. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason IMDB links were removed from the (film) infobox is because they are better suited in the External links section, not because they were deemed as an 'unreliable source'. IMDB is not cited as a source, but as a link to more information. I have no problem moving the link to External links, but removing them alltogether, as is being done now, is not acceptable. Also, the classic BBC link is also an exeternal link, so it has no place in the infobox. They are already linked in the External links section anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 22:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
IMDB has a specific entry under the films wikiproject as a "questionable source". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
As "refering to IMDB as a source", yes. However, we are not talking about IMDB as a source, but as an external link; we do not cite IMDB in any article, hence WP:RS does not apply, WP:EL does. Please stop confusing the two. — Edokter • Talk • 12:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I was just clarifying (for others?) that IMDB isn't a reliable source. As to its addition to/deletion from articles - that would (should?) be on a case-by-case basis. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
"Reliable source" is a misnomer here... That is a condition pulled from Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That policy only applies if anything in an article is using information from IMDB to cite content in the article. Again, show me any example where information is cited from IMDB; you will not find any. The only guideline that applies here is Wikipedia:External links. So I will ask again: stop confusing WP:RS with WP:EL. — Edokter • Talk • 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I was not aware that I was confusing RS with EL. I believed I was clarifying that upon removing the IMDB link from the infobox, there was no point in reusing it within the References rather than the Ext Links. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lars Pearson AfD

The Lars Pearson article is up for deletion. Pearson has written a number of books on Doctor Who and is a frequent speaker at conventions. If anybody would like to work on the article or vote in comment on the AfD, now is the time. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD is not a "vote" but a rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies. All such contributions welcome. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops. My mistake. Striking comment. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jade Pagoda Awards

Are these fan awards notable enough in the Doctor Who fandom to merit inclusion in Doctor Who novel articles? So far, they're currently cited in the "Reception" sections on some of the novels, although User:Cameron Scott has removed them citing "doesn't seem to be a notable award but rather something handed out by a talk forum" which is alright since its importance hasn't been discussed yet until now. Originally, there were citations on such novels as The Turing Test and Camera Obscura.--DrWho42 (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm fussed either way but as far as I can see, the award was given by members of a Yahoo mailing list (membership of around @500) - I just can't see how that is a notable award or anything different from someone on a forum of 1000 people starting a thread and saying "the blogo award" and then sticking it in articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well here's the faq for the awards http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/jp/faq.htm - singularly non-notable I'd say.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I run that site and have helped run the Awards. Despite my affection for the JP Awards, no, I don't now think they can qualify under Wikipedia guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tunnel at the End of the Light

This Time Hunter novella entry was changed into a redirect, asserting it is a non-notable. The associated image is now up for deletion, since it is no longer being used in an article. This could lead to the other novellas being erased. I thought the project should know. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Why has it been reduced to a re-direct?--DrWho42 (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Because an editor thought it failed Notability criteria - probably lack of coverage in thrid party sources from the look of it. Sometimes the subjects of articles just aren't notable enough for wikipedia. It happens. It is still listed under the series entry. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit wars on Eighth Doctor Adventure articles

There have been edit wars between User:Theslink2000 and User:Lots42 on the Wikipedia articles:

So far, Theslink2000 has put a note on Talk:Vampire Science and Theslink2000 has been notified of why it's copyright infringement. Just thought to leave a note here in case this continues and needs to be resolved.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think Lots42 has it about right, we do plot summaries not page by page, blow by blow accounts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Doctor Who articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Internet Speculative Fiction Database

I went ahead and included external links to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database for every novel of the Eighth Doctor Adventures line. I think the same should be done for every other Doctor Who, Torchwood, Time Hunter, etc., novels and anthologies, and short stories since it's pretty much standard linking to for anything sci-fi/fantasy literature. Thoughts?--DrWho42 (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge and then split

A suggestion which should be put into consideration is to merge List of The Sarah Jane Adventures creatures and aliens and List of Torchwood creatures and aliens into List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens and then split that into for example List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens (A-C), List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens (D-F) and so on. I mean look it's all one universe that those aliens and creatures exist in just that different spin-offs and stories which they are featured in and by different writers. Articles like List of Doctor Who villains and List of Torchwood characters keep separate as those are individuals but just those ones we merge and then split accordingly. Just like how all the planets which appear and mentioned in any of the spin-offs all featured here: List of Doctor Who planets. So if possible, could we maybe be able to do this? --Victory93 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyberwoman aside, are there many such beings which are common between Torchwood and either of the others? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what is meant by many. There are several, like the Butterfly People, Sontarans and Slitheen that have made appearances in more than one series. There is also the occasional group shot as was seen in "The Pandorica Opens" that have creatures from the various series. I don't necessarily see the need for a merge but if the consensus comes down to do one we might want to consider renaming the article(s) "List of creatures and aliens in the Whoniverse" or some such to allow for the multiseries nature of the new page. MarnetteD | Talk 19:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, so that's 1 common between DW and Torchwood (Cybermen/women); 1 common btwn Torchwood and SJA (Butterfly People); the rest are, I think, common btwn DW & SJA. The case for merging Torchwood is therefore weaker. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the point is rather that those are all aliens that appear in the Whoniverse and as such it's ineffective to split them per TV show when all those shows are based in the same universe. Rather, exactly because such common appearances did happen and can still happen, it would be wiser to have those subjects already in a common article, because then we don't have to change it again if such a appearance happen or have multiple entries for the same creature in different articles. Regards SoWhy 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The Star Trek franchise has such a series of lists, which cover characters that sometimes occur in only one series and other that span many, if anyone wants to contrast and compare. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Supposably naming the articles List of Whoniverse creatures and aliens (A-C) would be much more fitting and means the entire Doctor Who universe. --Victory93 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Is "Whoniverse" sufficiently well sourced so that there will be no problems defending the article name later? At the moment Whoniverse is supported by a few cites including a link to a website - whoniverse.org.GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this source should be enough, since it's from the BBC themselves. Regards SoWhy 10:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
So can we maybe start with the merge if possible if we are all in an agreement? --Victory93 (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
A single source for the use of "Whoinverse" does not make the term common usage. Personally, I oppose merge since I am not convinced of the usefulness of it at this time. However the next stage is to put up the appropriate merge notices on the articles. I notice that the equivalent for Star Trek is in the form of a table which identifies which part of the ST series it comes from - perhaps some consideration should be made of the presentation form.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps use "Doctor Who Universe" or something like that 217.30.113.50 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with the above, Doctor Who universe is clear and descriptive, however I do note in the interest of balance that "whoniverse" kicks "Doctor Who Universe"'s butt in a google fight, which I found surprising, wouldn't have called that result. Although whether it is the best term to use for clarity's sake is a slightly different question, I would imagine whoniverse is more used by fans rather than the general public.Number36 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I ran the terms "whoinverse" and "Doctor who universe" through google and got the reverse result by a factor of about 10 - I did include -"wikipedia" to avoid pages that were just mirroring though. Which search terms did you use? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Just did the same, "Doctor who universe" -wikipedia gives about 850k results [9]; whoniverse -wikipedia gives about 64k results [10]. Edgepedia (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay, didn't minus wikipedia, now am getting only about a third as many hits for whoniverse compared to "Doctor Who Universe", that makes more sense to me. I'm getting 285K for Whoniverse -wikipedia and 847K for "Doctor Who Universe" -wikipedia. Difference apparently is searching via google.co.uk vs google.co.nz how odd.Number36 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
On google.com, "Doctor who universe" -wikipedia gives 89.2k hits,[11] whoniverse -wikipedia[12] gives 282k hits. Umm... Edgepedia (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that would be 375 and 489 hits, technically.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me just suggest rather strongly that we should be tailoring these articles to a general reader, not necessarily a fan of the show, and as such, the title should be intuitively obvious - that is "Whoniverse" is a neologism that is unclear and, while it should be discussed in context, does not make for a good article title as much as it is commonly used within fan communities. "Doctor Who universe" gets to the point immediately with no questions asked. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Real-world focus dictates that we treat them as fictional characters that appeared in certain shows, written by particular writers, broadcast for a particular audience! Merging them treats the article like a taxonomy of some alternate universe's real collection of monsters, which is not the case. WP:WAF. ~ZytheTalk to me! 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're thinking it's a case of Synth or OR to group them together?GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Zythe. This isn't the Doctor Who Wikia, where information is approached from an in-universe perspective. The creatures should be presented as characters in a specific television series, not residents of a shared fictional universe. For those who appear in multiple series (which isn't that many), it's simple... just discuss them under the show in which they first appeared, and link to that page from the other article(s).  Paul  730 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Real world focus is certainly aware of more than those who think that only fans use a certain term. As shown much earlier the BBC itself uses the term "Whoniverse". Seems that Buffyverse is plenty encyclopedic for Wikipedia. The characters in question share several television series that are part of a collective created universe. Seems like the question is "Do we want to be pedantic?" or "Do we want to have a batch of repeated info spread over several article forcing readers to search far and wide for the info they want?" Either way a new set of editors will probably come to a completely different consensus a few years from now. MarnetteD | Talk 05:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. "Buffyverse" is only encyclopedic insofar as the term is used to discuss canonicity, which is separate; that's the extent of the term being used in Wikipedia. You'll find characters are linked at "Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)" and "Illyria (Angel)" and not "Soandso (Buffyverse)". The articles are also split "List of minor Angel characters" and "List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters". These characters aren't real people. Readers aren't going to get confused unless they're thick, and this isn't Simple Wikipedia. To discuss "monsters/characters in Whoniverse" treats the article as a taxonomy of monsters that cohabit a shared universe, rather than accounting for the fact that REAL WORLD FACTORS such as who writes the show and who it is intended for are much more important according to Wikipedia policy and also, just common sense. Readers won't "search far and wide" - a Wikipedia search or a Google search finds these things, or close interlinking. No one's going to think "hmm, I can't remember whether the Sex Gas was a Sarah Jane or Torchwood monster, better browse for ages!" Also, Wikipedia simply shouldn't care: this is not a fansite. If you want them all listed together as a bestiary of fictional monsters, then there are PLENTY of fansites that already do that.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Fans I'm pretty sure already are aware that Doctor Who, Torchwood, SJA and K9 are all one universe being Doctor Who the parent. Those spin-offs themselves make reference to the main show both direct and indirect. --Victory93 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not about catering to what fans know or don't know (for one thing, that's irrelevant), it's about representing the fictional works as fictional works which are no more than the sum of those constituent factors which influenced their development and reception. And those are things like writers, audience, network, etc. It does not matter if they are in a shared universe and this only requires honouring where it is part of the character's origin (e.g. Cyberwoman). They are not real aliens and monsters, they are ideas represented on screen in a particular way.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That summarises everything perfectly. DonQuixote (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Two points I'm thinking about. First, I prefer 'Whoniverse' over 'Doctor Who Universe' in the title myself, because it's catchier (although this issue really doesn't matter because we can use redirects). Second, I'm curious as to why some believe merging these articles automagically creates an in-universe look on the enemies, where 'merging' means just putting the information into one page, without editing the content being merged. Assuming the separate articles are currently in an out-of-universe perspective, turning the merged article into an in-universe article would require more effort than a simple gathering of the info. (However, if the separate articles are currently in-universe, then merging certainly won't make it any worse or better). In any case, I support the merge, because to me it just feels redundant to list the enemies of one universe on three pages, even if information isn't repeated across these pages. I guess that opinion comes from me being a programmer though. :) Rnddim (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_23&oldid=1144476845"