Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 26

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 20

←

Archive 24

→

List of Doctor Who (2005) episodes

Could someone take a look at this, please? I'm confused. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. U-Mos (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The never-ending Song

Once again the discussion of whether River is a companion (yet) has been quietly brewing at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Revisiting Dr Song. As the (very loose) agreement there directly conflicts with how River is considered across the project, I have reverted and am opening the discussion here. For my part, she is not a companion. I don't like that she has a rather ridiculous "future companion" section at Companion (Doctor Who), but its understandable considering how often sources (such as confidential) refer to her as such. But there is nothing directly linking her to companion status for the episodes she's appeared in so far, either by narrative or decent primary (ie. from the production team) or secondary (ie. numerous WP:RSes calling her such for a particular appearance) sources. U-Mos (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've undone your revert for now. The reference attached to that material was a BBC America page with the explicit statement "Get an inside look at the Eleventh Doctor's Companions: Amy Pond, Rory Williams and River Song". Seems pretty hard to argue that the BBC doesn't see the character as a companion in the face of that reference. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that reverting this has made the companion page disagree with the rest of the project, to copy my comments on the 'source' from that talk page: "it is from BBC America (ie. not the production team), it uses the term loosely and unclearly and does not in any way assert that River is a companion in any particular episodes themselves. It's a classic case of finding a source to fit your viewpoint, rather than the other way round." U-Mos (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems pretty explicit and is from an arm of the broadcaster. Hardly "loose and unclear", and certainly not "finding a source to fit your viewpoint". If the BBC is stating "companion", it is hard to argue with. Your point would be more appropriate if it were the CBC, or some other broadcaster, but the BBC is DW's home after all. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering the context (quick summary of a video clip), it is admittedly a weak source. Anyway, things will probably get clearer as time progresses (and possibly more sources). DonQuixote (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And it must be noted that, with the future companion section, we are not denying that River is a companion. Just not in episodes broadcast so far. U-Mos (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who added this info & source to the articles in question, so let me take a moment to defend it: The source is not just a "quick summary of a video clip" - it's the clip itself, part of the "Doctor Who Insider" series, which is a series that aired *during* the program itself on-air (in commercial breaks)… I'm assuming that this particular clip was shown on-air as well, in addition to being on the official website, on iTunes and BBC's official YouTube account (we could add these each as sources on the article/s, but that would be redundant in my opinion, as the content is identical). The piece itself is a short feature about the Doctor's companions, and is split equally among the three of them - one of them being River Song. It's much more than a passing comment, it's explicit, and purposeful, and from a definitive source… BBC didn't simply "slip up" and accidentally include River in the clip. The text summary of the video that names her as one of the companions is simply further evidence that they have labeled her as a "companion." If a source is needed to name which specific episodes this status applies to, then I would suppose the airdate of this clip could be referenced, as it was released online prior to the season 6 premiere… but the source names her simply as one of the companions of "the Eleventh Doctor" so it could be referenced to apply to his entire tenure. Based on the timing of this clip, though, I would say it's only "verifiable" for Season 6, at least for the episodes in that season in which she appears. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in that this in no way asserts that River is a companion in series 5 or even 4 (narratively, there is a slight change in her role in series 6 with the Doctor summoning her rather than vice versa). So if we are to accept this source, then adding River as a companion for The Impossible Astronaut, Day of the Moon and A Good Man Goes to War would be correct for now I think.

However, let's think about this. I was pleased to see that the project has apparently accepted my inclusion of the three UNIT lads under a "disputed" header for the Third Doctor on the companion page. Why not do a similar thing for River? Change the future companion section to a sub-section of Eleventh Doctor, and cite that many sources name her as an Eleventh Doctor companion? Then, if and when she assumes a more traditional companion role (ie. travels with the Doctor between stories) we can re-assess.

That's just a suggestion though. As long as we only consider her a companion in series 6 and not before, I would find that acceptable. U-Mos (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonlable. DonQuixote (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at my above suggestion so this discussion does not die per WP:BRD. I'm not sure if it's perfect, it was tricky to decide how much detail was relevant. U-Mos (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Shubopshadangalang

Thing is you seem to have misunderstood what I was trying to achieve by altering the prose text on River at Companion (Doctor Who). The idea was, like with the Third Doctor's UNIT friends, to state that she's sometimes considered a companion without asserting that she definitely is. You've changed it to read that she IS a companion, which makes the whole section redundant. If she's in the Eleventh Doctor table, anything else can be expressed through footnotes as with other characters. (Incidentally, the bottom paragraph doesn't read correctly since your edits but I am unable to change as I'm not 100% on what your intended meaning is.)

The problem is, asserting that she's definitely a companion for series 6 presents difficulties. The source only calls her a "companion", it doesn't specify any particular episodes and it's hard to use that to say she's a companion in series 6 but not 5 or 4. But conversely, I don't think anyone considers it correct to call her a companion of the Tenth Doctor. If she's in the table, it means she has to be added to Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions and the articles for specific episodes, and despite the slight narrative change I mentioned on the project page I don't feel there's really enough to distinguish between series 6 and her previous appearances. That's why I feel that we should leave her off the companions list until she travels with the Doctor properly (for want of a better term). U-Mos (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand your intent a little better now. But my problem here is that "led her to be occasionally named as" is vague and passive at best, Original Research at worst. As you said, the source simply calls her a companion of the Eleventh Doctor… but that's the source we have, and so that's all the info we have to use in the article. All other detail as for what episodes that applies to is secondary to that, and would need to be sourced wherever possible. I know the chart is set up to do that, and that is tricky with this character being so unusual. But removing the solidly sourced info and instead stating it the way you did to me is not the solution, hence my revisions. As for the bottom paragraph, I simply tried to rephrase it so that it read more definitively… it was your sentence originally, so I'm not sure what to say about the intended meaning beyond that. Waiting until she travels with the doctor more, etc., in order to ascertain details - maybe I'm missing something in what you're suggesting - but to me that just sounds like editing based on Original Research. Oh, and thanks for catching that Time Of Angels thing… Impossible Astronaut would be right. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with losing the word occassionally, though I stuggled with that bit as we actually only have one source so I couldn't exactly say "some sources". The source we have is not definitive, and we cannot use it to say she is a companion. What we can do is use it to say that some consider her a companion. As for waiting for her to fulfil a more definite companion role in the series, I don't see how that can be OR. If a character travels with the Doctor between stories they are undisputably a companion in those episodes; it is only with clear and definite sources (such as those provided for the Tenth Doctor's many one-time companions) that others are listed. So waiting for River to be an undisputable companion is hardly OR. And I do think that's the right way to handle it. She is a companion, and can be sourced as such, but is not in any episodes broadcast yet (and might not even be played by Alex Kingston when she is). U-Mos (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This will probably come up eventually, but since the source in question is a single source and also a weak source (a quick summary of a video which lists her in a group of companions with the video itself keeping things vague, even going so far as to say that Moffat and Kingston are the only ones in on it), there's the danger that a third-party might get the impression that we're grasping at sources that affirm a POV. Just a little heads-up on that. DonQuixote (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is absolutely definitive (DonQuixote - see my explanation above - more than a "quick summary") and from an official source, and in content that is broadcast/distributed side-by-side with the show itself. There's no reason to say that this character is not a companion in already-broadcast episodes (the source doesn't name episodes, but is aired with the current series). As for POV and grasping… I'd say the opposite could be interpreted on the other side of the argument, that some are grasping at reasons to discount a source in order to justify their own point of view… but as we all know, Wikipedia is not about any of our points of view. This is a properly-sourced, verifiable piece of information, and whether that information is "disputed" by some editors is, quite honestly, irrelevant. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And as for the OR comment - let me clarify what I mean… if you're waiting for more sources to become available, that's one thing, but if you're waiting for more episodes of the show in order to observe them, and decide in your own mind whether you think what's happening with this character qualifies her as a "companion" and making edits based solely on this, that absolutely *is* OR. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but what you, or I, or anyone else thinks, observes, determines, interprets, or infers, are OR. As fans of the show, we all have views and opinions, believe me, I know, but we gotta play by the rules here. Regardless of anyone's opinions, or which person with which opinion sought out and added a verifiable source… a source is a source is a source. :) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah it's my POV that the source is weak. If it were absolutely definitive, as you say, then we wouldn't be having this dialogue. And no, I'm not trying to discount the source in question to affirm my POV about River...mainly because my POV about River is irrelavent to the articles in question. But however, the "verifiability" of the information is relevant, and as I've said my POV is that the source is rather weak. A source is a source is a source, as you say, but as I've pointed out the quick summary of the video is suspect...and the video itself is vague and the vagueness of the character is even a part of the video presentation. I've also pointed out that things will probably get clearer as time progresses with the possibility of more sources. DonQuixote (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had another go at changing the text, in the hope it finds a fair ground between our viewpoints. As you can see it is now unequivical in calling River a companion, but equally clear that she has not travelled with the Doctor in episodes broadcast to date and her time as a companion takes place in the Doctor's relative future. I've left the table for now, but obviously I'd be in favour of removing her from it and leaving the explanation to the section below. U-Mos (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Good changes. IMO, she should remain in the table, but I like what you've done in the copy. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So if she does remain in the table, which episodes would we call her a companion in? Just series 6? Or I guess the season and episode columns could be left as N/A? U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC

I've requested for comment here, because I don't feel the discussion is looking like gaining a consensus. I believe the prose section I re-wrote at Companion (Doctor Who)#River Song is unopposed, but the issue of how (and indeed whether) to enter River in the table above it, and how that will impact Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions and seperate episode article infoboxes, is still contentious. U-Mos (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've indicated my opinion via my last edit, but to reiterate here: The source calls her a companion of the Eleventh Doctor, so it must be (at least) in the current series (6), and (therefore) at least in one episode of that series. … Obviously this is a unique situation, so it may not work by the same rules the chart was set up as, but I see no reason we shouldn't consider River a companion in at least one episode (if not all the episodes she appears in) during series 6, as it's clear that BBC consider her to be a current companion of the current doctor. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, no. Just because someone is currently a companion doesn't mean they've been a companion in every appearance. Eg. was Wilfred Mott a companion after his cameo in "Voyage of the Damned"? ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 07:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

But Shada, the edit's you made have left the table reading that River is a companion in 1 episode, but with no indication of which episode this is. And this discussion proves that it's far from "clear" that the BBC consider her a companion this series. As I've said before, if it's going to be this series I think it should be every appearance, ie. since The Impossible Astronaut. But I don't think we have a good enough source to assert that. What we really need, and the reason for starting this RfC, is a proper consensus, and I'm sorry to say it but I think you're going to have to agree to a compromise or you're not going to get anywhere. TreasuryTag, to clarify are you saying she shouldn't be included in the table at all? U-Mos (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What's absolutely clear is that the source (BBC) confirms that River is one of the companions of the Eleventh Doctor. To suggest that they didn't mean right NOW, that they meant some time later, in episodes that have not yet aired, well, that's just beyond logic. I'm all for compromise, but even though all we have is the source which doesn't designate specific episodes, calling her a companion of the current Doctor in the current series means that it would have to apply to at least one episode. Not every episode, necessarily, but if it's not at least one, then we're either claiming the source is somehow talking about episodes that will air in months to come, or that they're lying, or mistaken. A character can't be a companion in the current series without being a companion in the current series. As for which episode, I couldn't tell you other than to suggest what would seem obvious (that it's in every episode in which she traveled with the Doctor in series 6)… I'm all for compromise, of course, but saying she's a companion in the current series– but in 0 episodes of that series– is the kind of math that makes cracks in time ;) —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the source lists River as a companion of the Eleventh Doctor, I would think that she should be listed as a companion for her fifth and sixth season appearances. If everyone is focused on the sixth season, then I would say all of those appearances since there is no way to really distinguish between them. Ω phois 16:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, for now I've WP:BOLDly added River as a companion for series 6 across the project (ie. at Companion (Doctor Who), River Song (Doctor Who), Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions, The Impossible Astronaut, Day of the Moon and A Good Man Goes to War, as at least that makes sense. Hopefully those with opinions will now follow the notes and a consensus can be found. U-Mos (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so noone can have a go at me blah blah blah. Here are my reasons for the River song removal of companian in AGMGTW and LKH. In CT she appears at the end of the episode and does not have companian status. In AGMGTW she is in it for slightly longer but no more than a minor cameo, so why list in one and not the other so I conformed it to CT. LKH she is trying to kill the DR and is most definatly not at River = companian moment, she is at the end of CT or very near to that stage imo, so for those reasons I removed her. Regards Globalwheels (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've reverted these changes. Companion status is not measured on how long a character is in an episode for, or whether or not they're on friendly terms with the Doctor. The decision that was made for River is that, as the sources point to, she is a series 6 companion. Let's Kill Hitler shows the beginning of her companionship role (from her perspective), regardless of her character at the start. The exception of Closing Time is that River's scene is seperate from the Doctor, ie. she does not appear in the role of a companion. However, this is not a firm law (see Turn Left (Doctor Who) for the most obvious example). If anything, rather than removing River from AGMGTW and Let's Kill Hitler she should be added as one in Closing Time. But only with a clear consensus to do so. U-Mos (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, companions trying to kill the Doctor is nothing new. Turlough comes to mind. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Since writing that the idea of adding River as a companion has grown on me, and I think it might be the right way to go. It's a far less in-universe way to go about it, and in the scheme of her on-going recurring companion status as agreed she would be a companion in every appearance set between her regeneration (Let's Kill Hitler) and her last kiss with the Doctor (Day of the Moon). And although it's not a two-parter, her scene in "Closing Time" is a lead-in to "The Wedding of River Song" where she is a companion. Are there any objections? U-Mos (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As long as we have consistancy, I don't mind either way, that's why I edited it in the first place! Globalwheels (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm rewatching Forest of the Dead right now. She is functioning as the Doctor's companion in this episode. I'm inclined to suggest that either she is the Doctor's companion in all her appearances, or none of them. She's more his companion in "Forest of the Dead" than "Let's Kill Hitler", at any rate. MultipleTom (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good news! Another part of River's story which has become hugely probmatic to users on here is her timeline. Well on Saturday in the last ever confidential her timeline will be set straight. Oh happy days endless arguements will finally be put to bed! Globalwheels (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actresses in infobox

In a new chapter of discussions about this character, there is currently a discussion at Talk:River Song (Doctor Who)#Portrayed by that would benefit from further input by not-yet-involved editors. Regards So Why 21:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Madame Kovarian stories

Nominated for deletion. Personally I can't believe someone created it. Globalwheels (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to add user had gone around creating alot of these navboxes for other characters and races for the stories they appear in including the Silence, Cybermat(why!), Judoon, weeping angles and Sonic Screwdriver Models/Marks (WTF?!) Globalwheels (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who templates

I put up a number of templates that appear to be being minimally used at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Doctor Who templates. Regards. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw, they're like the Template:Madame Kovarian stories one. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

It was suggested that I post this here. I think we need to add the North American DVD numbering to the original series list where they diverge from the semi-official numbering being used. Even with the note at the top, it makes it difficult for those who use that numbering (still being used in North America) when looking for a serial. I do not feel this in any way infringes on the numbering being used to get "Planet of the Dead" as the 200th story, since it would be simply additional information.

An example would be this:

After an 18-month production hiatus, the series returned. Eric Saward was script editor up to part eight, when Nathan-Turner unofficially took over script editing the remainder of the season because of Saward's departure. The whole season is titled as The Trial of a Time Lord, and is split into four segments. The segments are commonly referred to by their working titles^[1] (listed below) but the season was broadcast as one fourteen-part story and the working titles did not appear on screen. Episode length returned to 25 minutes, but with only fourteen episodes in the season, making the total running time of this season (and subsequent seasons) just over half of the previous seasons, going back to season 7.

No	Title	Code	Episodes	Writer	Director	Original airdate
143 (144)	The Mysterious Planet	7A	4 episodes	Robert Holmes	Nicholas Mallett	6–27 September 1986
143 (145)	Mindwarp	7B	4 episodes	Philip Martin	Ron Jones	4–25 October 1986
143 (146)	Terror of the Vervoids	7C^[2]	4 episodes	Pip and Jane Baker	Chris Clough	1–22 November 1986
143 (147)	The Ultimate Foe	7C^[2]	2 episodes (Episode 2 is 30 minutes)	Robert Holmes and Pip and Jane Baker	Chris Clough	29 November – 6 December 1986

^ "Doctor Who – Classic Series – Episode Guide – Second Doctor Index". BBC. Retrieved 18 May 2011.
^ ^a ^b Pixley, Andrew (1992). "Archive Feature Serial 7C The Ultimate Foe". Doctor Who Magazine (Winter Special 1992). London: Marvel UK: 43–49. ISSN 0693-1275. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

As the alternate numbering is perfectly valid and still in active use, I don't think the list should ignore it. Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For any editors coming to this discussion here Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#DVD Numbering is the thread begun a few days ago so that you can see the responses that have already been provided. I would add to my posts there by stating that 1) The DVD numbering system only exists in region one and is meaningless to readers who live outside that region. Its inclusion seems to have WP:UNDUE problems in an article that is not about the DVD releases. 2) The example given makes the table more confusing not less. A reader will still have to find some explanation for why there are two sets of numbers in the same way that they have to find why there are differing number systems so clarity has not been gained. 3) The numbering system for region one DVD also has its own quirks as with the "Lost in Time" box set and the shortened recreation of Marco Polo where no numbers (or several depending on what part of the packaging you are reading) are used. Thus there will be a need to further explain (as in DVD 2 contains parts of serials 8, 24 and 33) that situation. If the rest of you can hammer out something workable then so be it but I would be against the DVD numbers being added to the serial articles at this time. MarnetteD | Talk 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick thoughts. Surely anyone looking for a serial looks for it by name and not by the number on a DVD box? If the numbering is mostly used by those who write about the programme, then adding a deviation from that which is not widespread makes little sense. So I leave towards "Undue" being the correct reason for omitting NA numbering. A subsidiary concern is that if adopted, A note will have to be added to the tables where it is used to explain the situation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of confusion (mentioned by MarnetteD) can easily be solved by changing the heading of the first column to "UK No. (US No.)" or something similar. I would also contend that it's useful information to add.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 00:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just remove numbering completely. There are multiple systems in use, multiple issues (Shada, Trial, Children in Need segments, Utopia, even the animations), a lot of writing uses no numbering at all and "official" is a meaningless concept because different bits of the BBC say different things at different times for different purposes. Including numbering creates numerous problems and doesn't add much at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures Good Article Nomination

The Sarah Jane Adventures has been nominated for a good article status if there is any good reviewers out there feel free to review it on by clicking here Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the experience to review it, but I noticed ther was an "original research" tag, a "citation needed" tag, and some dead links. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Return of the templates

Template:Weeping Angel stories

Template:Graske stories

Template:Arcateenian stories

Template:Trickster stories

FYI, in case anyone wants to put them up for CSD. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 16:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Judoon stories has been recreated too. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 16:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I notified the user in question and deleted two of those templates as G4. The other three have not been discussed yet, so unless Finister2 accepts that those are not useful and nominates them for deletion himself, you'd need to nominate them for deletion first. Regards So Why 16:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. The discussion may be found here --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 19:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

As a disambig, aren't articles such as Inferno (Doctor Who) and Battlefield (Doctor Who) a little imprecise. Shouldn't these be Inferno (Doctor Who story) etc, to show what the article is about, in the same way that you would have Low (David Bowie album) rather than Low (David Bowie). Disambiguating it with just (Doctor Who) is meaningless really. Any thoughts?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, all TV episodes with disambig titles have the name of the show in parenthesis unless for special cases (for example Human Nature (Doctor Who episode) to distinguish it from Human Nature (Doctor Who novel)). The reason it is Low (David Bowie album) is because there is also Low (Testament album). If only David Bowie had an album called "Low", it would be "Low (album)". See WP:PRECISE. :) Glimmer721 ^talk 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not the reason. Low (David Bowie) would still suffice if that was the terminology, unless he had a song by that name with an article. I also think that Doctor (Doctor Who) should be Doctor (fictional character), but then I'm a bit of a stickler for such things! --Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Although, Inferno (Doctor Who story) may well be a fair idea, because we also have an episode of that name (this is linked from the hatnote at the top of Inferno (Doctor Who)). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree if it were remotely likely that The Romans (Doctor Who) would be broken down into 4 articles. It isn't. Even if it were, "story" becomes ambiguous since both are stories. - J Greb (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

New Series Adventures

Is there anyone interested in working on New Series Adventures pages? Glimmer721 ^talk 02:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Suicide Exhibition

On the page List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films there is a section for a Series 4 episode originally going to be titled "The Suicide Exhibition" but has no sources. Does anyone know where these could be found? The article is currently a FL, so we should upkeep its quality. Also, "A Midwinter's Tale" has no references either. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Chronology problem

Due to the apparent fact that Chronology of the Doctor Who universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is fixable, it's been kept at a second AfD, despite the first being a highly conditional keep in that if the problems were fixed by this time last year. They weren't. So, how do we get about fixing the article? I'd preferably give it to the TARDIS Wikia and nuke it from high orbit, but that's not a viable option these days. There is an alternative option: reverting it back to the state it was in for its FLC back in 2007, doing an OR cleanup of that, and working from there, add the new series episodes in, with the contemporary episodes only in relation to each other (e.g. The Man Who Never Was is obviously after Sky), and then set up ground rules including:

Reliable sources trump observations., i.e. verifiability, not truth.
Citations for dates stated in episodes need timestamps.
Observations which rely on the real world are not allowed: obviously, we can't date Martha's episodes using the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as a limiter.
Citations to BBC-run websites are limited to news stories, the classic episode guides and S1-4 fact files.
UNIT stories are not dated, due to the UNIT dating controversy.

I'm going through and editing the references of the article now, according to these rules. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem that I think starts this is that the normal chronology of the events (eg taking place in 1970 or 2 million BC or whenever) is effectively inconsequential, and certainly has minimal impact since, from the show's characters' perspectives, they will witness events completely differently. In other words, say serial 201 happens in 1970, while serial 428 happens in 1968 and serial 639 happens in 1971. It is extremely rare that the 428 serial events in 1968 will influence the 639 serial events beyond the changes in characters, and not so much the events in the interviening world. And of course, what happened in the 428 serial isn't going to be at all a factor in the 201 serial.

What if the approach was reversed: First column of the table would be the serials in show order, and then there would be a list of columns, similar to the individual table heading now, with the cell marked in the column(s) where the episode took place and maybe a specific year or the like. What this would should is where the general time periods that DW has occured in, of course most in 20th and 21st century periods. But, as I suspect, it would also show the trend from the show being part educational at its onset and moving towards outright sci-fi later. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just put it up for deletion again? It's not a vote. None of the arguments to keep the damn thing were valid.Zythe (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd raze the thing to the ground, but AfD is packed with inclusionists that claim that anything is "fixable". Even if the subject is unencyclopedic. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why were almost all references replaced with "citation needed", despite being valid references? -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainly, I think, because they weren't valid references: they were direct observations on what had occurred in that, or another, story; this is pure original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are too many of these DW related articles on Wikipedia in my view. Chronology, Season 6B, UNIT dating, List of guest appearances etc. Many of these have been taken to AfD, but all have survived. They are a minefield of original research and are just not worthy subjects for a serious encyclopedia. Articles on stories, CDs, novels and the like are fine and valid, but articles made up of fan theories must surely be seen by anyone outside of fandom as ridiculous.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not an article of fan theories. Of course, the UNIT Dating and Season 6B can go. -- Noneofyourbusiness (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Enemy of the World

I really think a search for "Enemy of the World" should go straight to the Who story, or at least a disam page, rather than an obscure American CD released by an obscure American band last year. Thoughts? Nick mallory (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; the DW story is titled The Enemy of the World, note the definite article. The article Enemy of the World has a suitable hatnote, which should be enough. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Adventure_Games

The article Doctor Who: The Adventure Games has a lot of unsourced information that I think isn't accurate, like the rating and the developers. I removed some fake entries from platforms, but I could use some help checking the rest of the article and keeping the vandalism out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanwhofan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention...the article really needs help, although I am very inexperienced in the video game field. I did write the video games section on the Sereis 5 article, which contains a lot of information, especially on creation. Is there anything you think is particularly fake or needs work? Glimmer721 ^talk 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It started again, somebody keeps adding things like the Atari Lynx to platforms. Americanwhofan (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's one user/IP you may want to WP:WARN them. You may also want to request for protection. Thank you for watching the article. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Unquiet Dead

This episode is marked as a Christmas Special, both in Template:Doctor_Who_Christmas_specials and . Is there a reason for this? Edgepedia (talk) 13:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think not. It is only set during Christmas. — Edokter (talk) — 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Classic Season pages

A User is Creating Season pages for the classic series, - There's currently Seasons 16-26:

Doctor Who: The Key to Time
Doctor Who (season 17)
Doctor Who (season 18)
Doctor Who (season 19)
Doctor Who (season 20)
Doctor Who (season 21)
Doctor Who (season 22)
The Trial of a Time Lord
Doctor Who (season 24)
Doctor Who (season 25)
Doctor Who (season 26)

Just wanted to post a notice here so we can find a standard for these pages (format, etc.) Etron81 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

TO put my two bits in - I think keep consistent with the existing new series Series pages, we should include the AI figures in the episode listings. Also, instead of listing an average rating for the entire serial, we should list the figures for each - I've made an example for Season 26 of what I think the format should be in my sandbox

Also, on a side note, should Five Doctors be listed in the Season 20 page? We have it as a seperate special in the Serials List. Etron81 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They're a bit "unfinished". I'd be more concerned with attacking them with the typo brush and grammar broom first. Adding in the individual episode ratings will more or less give you duplication of the story article - why not an average (simple math not being Original Research). I took one article back to default colours for infobox and table - there being no particular colour association. And yes the Five Doctors stands alone - six month break in middle of season?Reckon!GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Five Doctors is considered by some reliable sources (such as Lofficier in The Programme Guide) as part of Season 20, but others (such as Howe & Walker in The Handbook: The Fifth Doctor and also in The Television Companion) have it as a one-off special. There are also some (such as Cornell, Day & Topping in The Discontinuity Guide) which list it under the main heading for season 20, but add a sub-heading for this one story. This discrepancy in treatment may be explained by the perception that the typical Pertwee/Baker/Davison season normally had 26 episodes; excluding T5D, Season 20 clocks in at 22, but if T5D be included, and counted as 4 episodes, that makes 26.

Going by chapter 7 of The Handbook: The Fifth Doctor, the original intention was to have the anniversary story as a normal story within season 20, and to transmit season 20 in Autumn 1983. This plan was later amended so that season 20 would go out at the normal time (Spring 1983), with the special as a one-off in November 1983. It was comissioned as a one-off special, having its own budget separate from the season 20 budget, and was not made as part of the s.20 production block. I read it somewhere that after the decision was made to separate off the special, season 20 would still have been 26 episodes in addition to T5D, but some problem (whether finance, shortage of scripts or an industrial dispute I don't recall) meant that one four-part story had to be dropped, giving the 22-episode season. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If I remember that chapter correctly the actual intention was to have season 20 start in autumn 82 and season 21 in autumn 83, with the anniversary special going out within the latter, but Peter Davison's commitments to a sitcom killed the idea. Season 20 as finally conceived was due to have 26 episodes at the start of 1983 but the last four (working title "Warhead", later made in season 21 as Resurrection of the Daleks) were lost due to strikes consuming studio time.

There probably isn't a single "correct" answer on this. The Five Doctors was effectively planned out as part of the season 21 production block but made in the 1982/8 financial year largely because of actor availability (Patrick Troughton's schedule was a particular issue) - producer John Nathan-Turner first applied to move on after the special, which he intended to be his swansong, but found that as far as the BBC Drama department were concerned the special was part of season 21 and JNT could produce bother or neither but not just one. Subsequently what season it was or wasn't part of never really mattered to anyone at the BBC - the series wasn't sold abroad by season but by packages, the classic series home video releases have never had season box sets, there weren't any full season repeats and (AFAIK) there's never been any official style guide issued by the BBC so that licensed reference books sing from the same hymn sheet on such matters. Some licensed reference works have included it in season 20, others as a stand alone and I think Doctor Who Magazine at least once listed it as part of season 21 (which JNT also made the case for in his mid 1990s memoirs articles). I'd have to check but I believe that DWM held its season poll for season 20 before The Five Doctors was transmitted, and that may have been the only firm thing in the public sphere in 1983.

Incidentally 20 & 21 aren't the only seasons where more than one definition has been given over the years. Several of the mid 1970s autumn-spring runs had gaps in transmission over Christmas, usually with a few repeats in the interim, and when the series resumed in the new year it was sometimes billed in BBC trailers and the Radio Times as a new season from the preceding autumn's. The same happened in 1980-81. However AFAIK none of the printed reference works have ever given this any more attention than a "Did you know the BBC promoted it this way?" sideline. (Although come to think of it one of the less reputable books did notoriously skip the 1980/81 run altogether - maybe the author saw the issue coming!) Timrollpickering (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These articles seem worthy enough, but why the change of colour each season? Shouldn't they be standardised as per other infobox collectives?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Episode Improvement Drive?

Hello, I had an idea of something we could do starting in the new year. I've noticed that many episode articles, especially the majority of series 1-3, are presented in a list format with way too much continuity and little (if any) reception. I was wondering if anyone was interested in starting a drive to work on one episode a week (like January 1-7 would be "Rose"). We could go in order but skip over articles which are GA or FA unless they need work to keep their standard. As I figure there are some people (like me, sadly) who know almost nothing about the classic series, someone who is interested could start a separated drive for classic serials. Or we could do one revived and one classic a week. The main reason I am suggesting this is because I have really only been able to work on episodes from series 5-present, as it is easier to find sources and the only access I have to Confidential is on the BBC America's website which only has the Cut Down versions of series 5 and 6. However, I am interested in making the earlier episodes more encyclopedic, but find this very hard to do with limited resources (I've noticed that many articls give a source in the sentance rather than as a reference, but it is hard to make it a reference without the source). This way we can collaborate: some may have copies of Doctor Who Magazine, DVD commentaries, or other outside sources (seems Confidential is avaliable online on the BBC Media Player, but it won't let me view it), while others (like me) might know their way around Internet sources and can copyedit.

Please let me know what you think! Glimmer721 ^talk 21:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have the regular DWMs from about 390 onwards. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Recovered episodes - hoax?

Some anon editors have been amending Galaxy 4, The Underwater Menace and Doctor Who missing episodes in a way that suggests that two missing episodes have been found. None of this information is sourced; per WP:V and WP:HOAX I believe that this should be reverted quickly, unless anybody can offer a concrete reliable source, by which I don't mean a tweet. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's real. See BBC press release. Regards So Why 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help...

**Taking a deep, calming breath**...I wrote all the episode summaries on Doctor Who (series 5) by myself, but they were removed today because the same text appears in a blog dated from 2010...I have no idea how to prove that those summaries are originally mine! I would never copy anything from a blog for a Wikipedia article. How do I prove this? Okay...(deep, calming breath again) just please see Talk:Doctor Who (series 5)#Copyright Violation removed, though I am a little less calm there (not angry, just...well, violated). Thank you. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Status of recovered episodes

Please see Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#Recovered episodes and comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Ponds' status next series

Evening all. So, in the last hour the BBC have announced (initially via twitter, but no doubt a better source will be available imminently) that Amy and Rory's "final days" are coming next series. Which is all well and good, but what I'm wondering is would that be confirmation that they will be appearing as companions next series? Considering the "then the Doctor will meet a new friend" line I'm leaning towards yes, but would understand if it that was considered OR. Thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I sort of assumed that we'd see them as recurring characters while the Doctor traveled with a new companion. "The God Complex" made clear that they would no longer travel with him. They may be companions on one or two occasions, like Micky and Jackie in Series 2. But the wording seems to say they'll somehow permanately depart FIRST before the Doctor meets his new companion. (They've been really mixing the formula up recently, which I do like, so it's getting harder and harder to predict things). To give the info without OR I would say (after the sentence about how Gillan and Darvill said they'd return; I'm assuming you're referring to the section in the List of Doctor Who serials article), "However, Moffat confirmed that Amy and Rory's "final days" would come in the next series and the Doctor would meet "a new friend"." It also says Moffat thinks River will appear. We might as well wait until tomorrow as it says more details will be released. Cheers! Glimmer721 ^talk 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Found this good source: [1]. Looks like we'll have to wait till tomorrow for more details, though. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And another (though more comprehensive) source: [2]. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My main thoughts were towards my pride and joy Companion (Doctor Who), which currently has their companion tenure as ending at The Wedding of River Song due to no confirmation of further *companion* appearances. Personally I think the events of this year's christmas ep will lead the Doc to pick them up again at the end for more companion adventures, which obviously is OR itself, but what the sources for this say (as you mentioned) is it will be 1. Ponds leave and 2. New companion joins in that order, which does suggest that the Ponds will be companions till the end. Certainly won't do any harm to see what's announced later today though, that might clear things up. In the serials article I'd say there's no need for any more than "Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill will make their final appearances as Amy and Rory" or similar. As for River, I don't think "Moffat thinks" is really worth a mention anywhere except River Song (Doctor Who) until any further appearance is confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw your change to the ""List of serials" article and wondered if we could find a better word/phrase for 'final appearances'. After all Rose came back in series 4 after leaving at the end of series 2, not to mention Sarah Jane. Edgepedia (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. "Will leave their regular roles" perhaps? As today's "more information" offered no more information, I'm going to change their final companion appearances to TBA at Companion (Doctor Who). U-Mos (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures Cast and crew

Does anyone think it is work added a picture of the Series 5 cast into the Cast and crew section of The Sarah Jane Adventures? There are currently 2 pictures there Series 1 cast and Series 2-4 cast.

Replace the 2-4 pic with one including Sky I say, the caption can explain that she only appeared in the last episodes. Everyone main cast member will be shown then. U-Mos (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures Nominated for Good Article

The Sarah Jane Adventures Article has been nominated as a good article. There are however fixes that need to be done see Talk:The Sarah Jane Adventures/GA1 Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reorganising and merging into List of Doctor Who serials

Hi all,

I've opened a discussion at the serial list talk to a) merge the chronology into the episode list (per Masem), and b) standardise the episode lists with others on the site. Your input is greatly appreciated! Sceptre ^(talk) 05:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures Now a Good Article

Today after a lot of hard work The Sarah Jane Adventures is finally a good article congratulations to everyone who helped thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead blurbs - are these original to WP?

Hi all, I'm not a member of WP:DW, but I've been amusing myself today wandering through the Series 3 articles, and I've noticed what may be systematic copyvios. I'd appreciate it if someone from this project could take a look at the matter and let me know whether I'm missing something (entirely possible) or whether the lead sections of many articles contain blurb text original to BBC. Nearly every episode article for this series has a lead section clearly based on the BBC blurbs, but some are overwhelmingly blatant copies while others are merely "yeah, it's obvious where they got that". The worst examples:

Gridlock (Doctor Who): "The Doctor and Martha must brave the ordeal of the mysterious Motorway in order to discover the terrible secrets at the heart of the city." Description from what appears to be the BBC website: "[...]they must brave the ordeal of the mysterious Motorway in order to discover the terrible secret at the heart of the city."
Daleks in Manhattan: "In New York City, 1930, in the midst of the Depression, people are disappearing from among the homeless and jobless masses. Pig-like creatures hide in the sewers, and at the bottom of the Empire State Building, some of the Doctor's greatest and oldest enemies, the Daleks, are at work, preparing their most horrific plan yet." BBC: "In the midst of the Depression, people are disappearing off the streets. Savage Pig Men hide in the sewers and, at the very top of the Empire State Building, The Doctor’s oldest enemies are at work, preparing their most audacious plan yet."
The Family of Blood: "It is 1913 in England and war has come a year in advance as the terrifying Family hunts for the Doctor. But when John Smith refuses to accept his destiny as a Time Lord, the women in his life — Martha and Joan — have to help him decide." BBC website: "It is 1913 in England and war has come a year in advance as the terrifying Family hunt for The Doctor. But while John Smith refuses to accept his destiny as a Time Lord, the women in his life – Martha and Joan – have to take terrible measures to save the whole of history."

Now, I've only checked over Series 3, but if this is indeed a case of systematic copyvio, it's likely all series will need to be checked and cleaned. Can someone explain to me the origin of our leads for these articles? Are they copyvios (problem!), or backwards copyvios (in which the BBC would have copied our text - not our problem)? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right that they are taken from the BBC, at the time of the creation of the article when the episode name and synopsis is known but before airing. Any of these that has not gone under a FA review likely should be double-checked to validate if there's a commonplace with the BBC blurb, with that part rewritten to replace it. One obvious key is the empathetic writing, text to bring about emotional responses (and an excitement to watch the episode), which we shouldn't really be using here. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. According to WikiBlame, the text was not inserted by the same editors every time, so it's probably hard to determine why the leads were added with this wording. Regards So Why 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that some in series 1-3 seem to have promotional teasers in the lead but have not gone about fixing them yet; at the moment I have been working on replacing the teasers found in the episode list of the series articles (done 1, 2, and 5 so far). I'll work on rewording them now though. I'm planning on undergoing a cleanup project of these earlier epsiodes so that'll be definitely something I'll check. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who Article citation needed

I have noticed there are about 32 citation needed on the Doctor Who article i thought the Doctor Who article would be Wiki Project Doctor Who's top priority. Does any known what it would take to get the Doctor Who article to a featured article Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Big articles intimidate me and I'll admit I've never edited that article. I would suggest setting it up for a PR. I would also suggest looking for print sources, as there are many on the show that would be of use for references in the article. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, this may be useful. (Torchwood is also on that list). Glimmer721 ^talk 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen Nominated for Good Article

Elisabeth Sladen Article has been nominated as a good article. There are however fixes that need to be done see Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1 thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A christmas Carol listing on Series 6 page

I noticed that "A Christmas Carol was listed in the "Supplemental episodes and specials" section of the Doctor Who (series 6) page, but previous Christmas specials are listed in the episode list of Doctor Who (series 2), Doctor Who (series 3), and Doctor Who (series 4). In relation to this, should The Five Doctors be listed in the episode list of Doctor Who (season 20) like series 2-4, or in a Specials section like Series 6? I just think we should be consistent across series/season pages. Etron81 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about The Five Doctors (I think there is a discussion above about whether that should be considered part of season 20), but I've moved "A Christmas Carol" (as I had been planning). Not sure why it was in the supplemental section to begin with. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Season/Series articles category

Now that there are season pages for all of the classic series, should "Category:Doctor Who series" be renamed to something like "Category:Doctor Who seasons and series"? Etron81 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just "seasons" to avoid confusion? It's essentially the generic term. I don't mind either, though. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Gwen Cooper and Rhys Williams nominated for Good Article

Gwen Cooper and Rhys Williams (Torchwood) have been nominated as good articles. Help would be appreciated either with a review or by implementing any fixes or improvements that can be done. Eshlare (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Russell T Davies

I noticed and moved him from the GA table to the FA list on WP:WHO's homepage. Great work! Now who/what are you going to tackle next? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I may try to get Graeme Harper to at least GA. Maybe Elisabeth Sladen too. At any rate, I'm going to have a long break before tackling another. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wish I could help out, but I have no idea where to start on biography articles other than copyediting. Oh well, you deserve the break! :) Glimmer721 ^talk 16:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

I was wondering if anyone was interested in WikiWomen's History Month, which takes place in March. Following WikiProject The X-Files, we could work on female characters (and there's a lot in Doctor Who, not to mention Torchwood) and their actresses. Plus, we could add female crew members (like Verity Lambert). So what do you guys think? Glimmer721 ^talk 16:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cast list at Doctor Who

I don't know when this happened or how thoroughly it was discussed, but I do not like the main cast list at Doctor Who's infobox reading only the current three stars with no qualifications. This goes directly against WP:FICTION's policy on the "present" in fictional works, as well as implying to those completely unfamiliar with the programme (of which some may actually exist) that these three stars are the only lead actors the show has ever had. I understand the need to limit it considering the number of regulars the show has had, but this is ridiculous. Perhaps just list all eleven Doctors and no companions, or all the Doctors and "various companions, currently..." as before? U-Mos (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Practice for shows where the cast often completely changes (as opposed to attritional cast changes like, say, Lost) is that we make note of the fact the cast often changes: see Skins, whose cast changes every two years. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What it used to be ("Various Doctors" with current underneath; "Various Companions" with current underneath) is pretty much equal to the Skins page. I'm changing it to the way it was. Glimmer721 ^talk 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films

I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who: The Adventure Games

There is a lot of unsourced (and I think fake) information, such as the developers and platforms, being added to the infobox of Doctor Who: The Adventure Games by IPs. This has happened before, and I reverted it, but they keep putting it back in. Some of the IPs only edit that page, and I suspect they may be the same person. Do you think I should have the page protected?Americanwhofan (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I'm not sure you'll have much luck with an IP who edits once a month. Edgepedia (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dalek video games

Template:Dalek video games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Digifiend (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Class needs updating

I happened to notice that three articles in the 'future' class have now happened - that is Torchwood: Miracle Day, The New World (Torchwood) and Rendition (Torchwood) - so they will need updated. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The category listing these articles is Category:Future-Class Doctor Who articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding articles to the project

I've gone through and added some writers and directors who have written/directed more than one episode/serial of Doctor Who and/or Torchwood and Sarah Jane to the project. I was wondering if there is a policy for this as well as the guest stars. Do they have to write/direct/act in more than one episode to be included in the project? For instance, we include Kylie Minogue and David Morrissey even though they only guest-starred in one episode. So why not Carey Mulligan or Claire Skinner (or even James Corden)? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say receiving title billing in the programme certainly warrants inclusion in the project, so Skinner and Minogue and Morrissey (and Lindsay Duncan and Michelle Ryan) YES. Others I guess would have to recur. James Corden does, and was a companion in one episode, so I'd say include him. Carey Mulligan may be an exception, as there's a lot of secondary material relating to her single appearance. I'm not aware of any set policy though. U-Mos (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I added [[Mal Young] (exec. producer of series 1) and John Simm (appeared in 5 episodes as the Master, received title billing in The End of Time). Glimmer721 ^talk 01:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Regular companions in future episodes

I remember during series 6 we were very cautious adding the regular companions to future episodes on such pages as Companion (Doctor Who) until we had confirmation that they would appear as a companion. (Considering what happened, we were probably right.) How does everyone feel about this now? Edgepedia (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to add her as a companion (and have Amy and Rory end at 7, as Gillan and Moffat decided she would leave for good), although has it been confirmed she will be in episode 6 on? The source doesn't say that. This says Amy and Rory will leave in episode 5 (with the Weeping Angels!!) but she could be introduced at the end of that one...(like how Donna popped up in "Doomsday") Glimmer721 ^talk 22:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, having seen the beginning of the video in the reference in that article it says she will be "taking over" in the Christmas special, though we probably need a source saying that will be the sixth episode (but will it still be considered part of the series?). Also sorry mentioning Donna-"first appearence" means "first appearence as companion" as I should have known... Glimmer721 ^talk

I've seen a source that Rory and Amy leave in episode 5, and a new companion is introduced in the Christmas special. I've seen nothing to say that both Rory and Amy are in all of episodes 1 to 4. Also although we are introduced to the new companion in the Christmas special, is she a companion in that epsiode, and is she going to be in all the following episodes as companion? Edgepedia (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Avoid speculation per "crystal ball" and be cautious with attribution. Who knows what might happen between now and then? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering we know that Amy and Rory rejoin as companions in series 7 (per Moffat's exact wording in the original announcement of their departure I believe) and leave in episode 5, it would surely need a source to the contrary to warrant suggesting they are not in any episode in between. We were cautious last year because there was never any confirmation that they would still be present at the end of series 6. But, for instance, remember when Amy and Rory's presence in "The God Complex" was confirmed by an early preview clip with no cast confirmed for the previous episode(s)? As they were on-going companions at that point, the best interpretation of that information was to infer that they would be in the previous episode too. The same applies here; there's no reason to think they may not appear in any of episodes 1-4 at this stage. As for Jenna, she is directly announced as both a new series regular and a new companion. She first appears in episode 6, and so again there is no reason to suggest she may not be a companion then. If things change, then we can change them. That's what the edit button is for. U-Mos (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not around much at the moment, but I'll just make one point in response to your post, U-MOS. You say that "there's no reason to think they may not appear in any of episodes 1-4 at this". Here's a copy of the current companion navbox:

In the last three episodes Amy and Rory has appeared as companion once and if we simply extend the current appearance pattern then surely Amy and Rory will appear in the 1st, 3rd and 5th episodes? I would say from recent experiance we have no reason to think they will appear in all the episodes. Again, on Jenna's character, I consider it possible that we would be introduced to a companion before they become a companion. This as happened before - looking back at Moffet's writting I see that Rory appeared in the 1st episode of series 5 and wasn't a regular companion until the 5th episode. Edgepedia (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Navbox return

It looks as though Finister2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy (re)creating navboxes that have previously been removed by consensus. I am headed out the door for a doctors (that is "a" doctor not "the" Doctor) appointment so I don't have time to create links to our past discussions and TFDs and, of course, consensus can change but I wanted to make the members of the project aware of this. MarnetteD | Talk 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

When I went to inform the editor about this discussion I did find a link to this TFD Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 13#Template:Weeping Angel stories so I am adding this for your convenience. MarnetteD | Talk 16:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have gone ahead and reverted all of Finister2's edits adding these templates, and have also deleted the templates. If there is a consensus to recreate them, the deletions can always be undone, but in most cases these were recreations (and even re-recreations) of templates that were deleted following TfD discussions. Finister2 has an established history of doing this, in addition to his/her habit of adding "main protagonist"/"main antagonist" to character descriptions. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for following up on this. I thought that the navboxes and that editor looked familiar. I appreciate that you took the time to take care of this. MarnetteD | Talk 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception for classic Who

Is there anyone who is interested in adding reception to Classic Who serials? I've found reviews here and here for starters. Unfortunately I haven't seen any of them myself (save An Unearthly Child and the first 2 episodes of The Daleks) so I'm quite unfamiliar with it. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Shada

I'm updating Shada and would like get help from any of the experts here. Please join me at Talk:Shada (Doctor Who)#Updating article. Thanks. 64.40.61.24 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Series 7 videos on Commons

I've uploaded two videos of Matt Smith and Karen Gillan filming the Series 7 Weeping Angels episode outside the Cardiff University physics department. The same individual who provided and licensed these videos also took 23 photos which I'm going to ask him to similarly license. Stay tuned. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That will be great--thanks! Glimmer721 ^talk 22:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That might actually be the first time we could add relevant videos to an article. Regards So Why 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Question, though: have there been any news reports about filming in that area? The location will need a source if it's in an article. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I can find the same location at Cardiff University with Google Maps here: http://g.co/maps/6c4k4. Should that suffice? Here's the same location on the Cardiff University School of Physics and Astronomy's home page: http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/aboutus/; it's just not as large or clear as the Google Maps view. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It certainly makes the distinction but I'm not sure that will be counted as completely reliable as there are no reports of filming there. All I can find are fansites, but since we probably won't have to worry until the episode is broadcast there is always hope for interviews and reports in the future. Too bad Confidential was canceled, although supposedly there will be some behind-the-scenes videos on the BBC website to accompany the new series. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who episodes

This template is being used on all the new series Series pages - as comments on in the template's talk page it seems a bit bulky. I also think it excludes the classic series for no good reason. I think it might be better to replace it with one that just links to the Season/Series pages (classic and New) unless there is a way to incorporate the classic into this format without making it much more bulky (I'm not a wiz at nested templates, so I'm not sure if that's possible) Etron81 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good idea. It could have links to all the classic seasons and new series, and maybe just show the episodes for that series (like Template:TXF episodes). Glimmer721 ^talk 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the X Files one as a starting point, I've made one in the sandbox here: Template:Doctor Who episodes/sandbox. You can see how each season/series would look like here: Template:Doctor Who episodes/testcases Etron81 (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That's just brilliant! One of my peeves with the old templates was that there wasn't a way to navigate the seasons/series without going back to the list page. Thanks for this! DonQuixote (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks great, but is there a way to get rid of the bullet before "New series"? I tried but it changed the formatting. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just needed to separate the lists into two. DonQuixote (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Do you think it's ready to implement? And do you think this should be put on only the season/series pages or every episode? Glimmer721 ^talk 16:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine to me, and as I've said that I want to go to any season/series at the click of a link, my opinion is that it should be on every serial/episode article. DonQuixote (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm probably going to have to go offline soon, but I could start from the new series while you go from the old, so we don't enter edit conflicts. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, would it be suitable to merge the different series templates for episodes of Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures into one template? There aren't that many, after all. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad these are going down well! Should this code replace the Existing Doctor Who Episodes template? I can work on Torchwood/SJA ones tomorrow, if no one else gets to it first... Etron81 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and update Template:Doctor Who episodes to my new code and implemented it on all the season/series pages Etron81 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also created Template:Torchwood episodes and implemented it on the Series/episode pages Etron81 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:The Sarah Jane Adventures serials has now been created and implemented it on the episode pages Etron81 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've updated to the new templates all the way up to Logopolis...then I got lazy and just updated the old templates from season 19 onwards. Just a little heads-up. Might get around to doing the rest eventually. DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ninth Doctor character articles

I've been working on various character articles related to the 2005-10 era of Doctor Who to coincide with it currently being seven years since the broadcast of series one. I started with edits to Rose Tyler and I am currently working on a draft article for the Ninth Doctor. Jack Harkness is already in pretty good shape having been listed as a Good Article for over four years and Mickey Smith is developing well. I've revamped Harriet Jones and Adam Mitchell and hope to work on Jackie Tyler with reference to WP:WAF guidelines.

Glimmer721 has been a great collaborator in sourcing and incorporating material regarding these characters and it would be great if anyone from the project would like to lend a hand with anything (copy editors especially welcome) or provide constructive feedback. I no longer have access to print materials such as Doctor Who Magazine and The Inside Story which from what I recall provided very good features on the supporting cast.

I've noticed that Pete Tyler and Cassandra have their own articles too. I'm not sure if these characters should be merged/deleted. I'm sure Davies commented somewhere about Cassandra being inspired by the cult of plastic surgery and size zero and I'm aware of journal articles that compare her "humanity" against Rose's. With reference to confidential, the commentaries and Doctor Who Magazine there is probably a lot to be said about Pete's role in Father's Day in addition to the reuniting of the Tyler family in series two. So both probably have the potential to have more developed articles.

Would anyone mind if I merged and redirected Trinity Wells or do I have to put it through discussion? Eshlare (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Woah, Harriet Jones looks good! My idea for Doctor era topics looked like this: (I only included the official companions, so I'm not sure if recurring characters should count; we should probably reach concensus here first) Glimmer721 ^talk 00:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

4 articles

It didn't take long thanks to "The Stolen Earth" article, sources I'd saved and google. Meaning to get back to the Ninth Doctor. Obviously in the context of the Ninth Doctor Harriet Jones is a one story guest star and Mickey and Jackie are not companions but there shouldn't be a problem linking the latter two as related articles to the topic, and it might give extra weight if they have adequate article status. I feel that in terms of series one they have at least as much narrative focus/relevancy as Adam. There's also quotes from Eccleston in press releases/confidential about Nine not liking Rose's domestic situation in relation to how he interacts with them. Eshlare (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, might as well work on them. The series 1 article is pretty good and close to FL; I was working on converting the awards list to prose. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

2008-2010 "Series" page?

Would it be advisable to create a "Series" page for the 2008-2010 specials? ("The Next Doctor" through The End of Time)

"The Next Doctor" has been removed from Doctor Who (series 4) and as the BBC markets these specials in a box set, I think it might be a good idea to give them their own page. I have next to zero experience creating Series pages like this, but I thought I'd through out the idea and see if it stuck... 17:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that some consider "The Next Doctor" as part of Series 4 as it was filmed during that Production block. However, The Smugglers was part of the last production block of Season 3, but is considered part of Season 4 due to it's transmission. I think that as "The Next Doctor" was transmitted well after Series 4 and not included in the Series 4 box set (it was part of The Complete Specials set), it warrants inclusion in a "2008-2010 specials" page rather than in the Series 4 page. Of course, I am willing to defer to consensus. Etron81 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would assert that the grouping of "The Next Doctor" in the specials DVD set confirms that is part of the 2008-10 specials and not series 4. U-Mos (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done a quick mockup of one in my sandbox - feel free to improve and expand if you wish. Etron81 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. We probably should have a section explaining the hiatus for yearly 13 episode series occurred - Tennant's appearance in Hamlet etc. I suspect that you were going to do this and thanks for you efforts and time in getting this started. MarnetteD | Talk 01:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There might be some reviews of the DVD releases, nevermind individual episodes. I know I saw a review of the DVD release from The Guardian, though I can't find it on a quick Google search. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Started working on the sandbox page a little--I was wondering if the production blocks were really necessary, as they were filmed in order. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in! I was just mirroring the other new series pages as a starting point - is there any kind of standard for these kinds of pages? Etron81 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really; each show does it differently. I'd use Series 5 and Series 1 as examples. I'd add in the plot summaries, but I haven't seen any of them yet. I'll still look for production info in the other articles anyway. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added summaries for all of the specials - is it good to move to mainspace yet, or should the Production section be expanded on first? Etron81 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Think maybe a few basic production facts could be added first, just borrowed from other articles (where was the thing about Tennant being in Hamlet, as mentioned above?). Otherwise it looks good enough. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Added srom Production info and moved to articlespace Etron81 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Five Doctors - quotes or italics?

An edit to Doctor Who (season 20) switched The Five Doctors from italics to quotes. I notice that it is now in quotes on List of Doctor Who Serials, but is still in italics on List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases. Which way shoudl we go? I'm leaning towards italics as it's a feature length special (90 mintues) and I think that under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles it would need to be in italics. (Of course that does bring into question some of the longer new series specials like Voyage of the Damned)

I am willing to bow to concensus, of course - at the very least I think we shoudl be consistant with it!

Thoughts? Etron81 (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone with time will be able to dig out the past conversations (I think that there has been more than one) but I can tell you that we have had a long standing consensus that it gets italics due to its feature length run time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Louisejamesonandcolinbaker.jpg

File:Louisejamesonandcolinbaker.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Meddling Monk

The article Meddling Monk severely needs attention (note the high proportion of {{citation needed}}); see its talk page for more details. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Something Borrowed

The episode itself has being reviewed for GA status. Frustratingly,File:Gwen reaction.jpg has been nominated for deletion in the past couple of days. I feel the image fulfills both free-use needs of facilitating discussion and aiding understanding of the episode for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Any contribution to the discussion would be most welcome. Eshlare (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The image for "Exit Wounds" has also been nominated for deletion; I commented that the scene it depicts is critical, although it hasn't been discussed by reviewers quoted in the article yet. Is there anyway a quick critical reception section could be added? I haven't seen the episode (or Torchwood) myself yet. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get round to adding tomorrow, and I'll comment once I've added something to the article. The episode was on my "to-do list" (Which just seems to get longer) in improving C class Torchwood articles to B class or GA. There's plenty to say about it. I think I can find some comments from the cast and crew and from casual past glances at critical reception for the episode the scene is considered unequivocally to be one of the emotional highlights of the series. I figured it wasn't as imperative to keep as the "Something Borrowed" image at the moment as in a worst case scenario an image could be easily re-uploaded with a stronger rationale once the "Exit Wounds" article has been revamped. My main concern is the discussion here as it seems to be the only thing standing in the way of the article review (currently on hold). Eshlare (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

[1] "Doctor Who – Classic Series – Episode Guide – Second Doctor Index". BBC. Retrieved 18 May 2011.

[Pixley-2] Pixley, Andrew (1992). "Archive Feature Serial 7C The Ultimate Foe". Doctor Who Magazine (Winter Special 1992). London: Marvel UK: 43–49. ISSN 0693-1275. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help)

[1]

[2]

v t e Companions of the Eleventh Doctor
Series	Series 5										Specials		Series 6										Specials
Episodes	203	204	205	206A / B	207	208	209A / B	210	211	212A / B	213	S/T	214A / B	215	216	217A / B	218A / B	219	220	221	222	223	224
Companions	Amy																				Craig	Amy
					Rory					Rory												Rory
													River				River					River