Talk:List of Doctor Who items

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List	This article has been rated as List-Class.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was created in response to the VFD debate on the Psychic paper article: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Psychic paper. Please feel free to expand it as you see fit, or move it to an article with a better name. --TimPope 07:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it be better at List of Doctor Who items, to be consistent with all the other Doctor Who lists? —Josiah Rowe 05:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll let someone else do it, because I'm on a self imposed "No page moves" thing at the moment.--Sean Black | Talk 05:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've fixed all the links in the main namespace as well. (By the way, why no page moves? Were you naughty?) —Josiah Rowe 06:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I needed to find out what the "Warning! This can be a drastic change..." text was, and I used George W. Bush as an example (I'd been told it was protected from moving). Then, my hand slipped, and... you know. Actually, look at User talk:Linuxbeak#Bush, Page-moves, and idiocy to see me freaking out. I felt really guilty.--Sean Black | Talk 20:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Culling 2 Whomobile Ownership 3 New Superphone Upgrade 4 Torchwood/Psychic Paper 5 Army of Ghost/Doomsdsy 6 Sonic lance 7 dalek tommy guns? 8 void ship 9 timey wimey device 10 Vorpal penknife 11 Tense and capitalisation 12 Anti-regeneration gun 13 Image:Past_Doctors.jpg 14 sonic lipstick- canon? 15 Bananas!!!! - Really? 16 Fair use rationale for Image:Doctors severed hand.jpg 17 Fair use rationale for Image:Dalek human guns.jpg 18 Shadow Proclamation 19 Pocket Franestan 20 Progenation Machine

[edit] Culling

Fair warning: I'm going to cull this page some time soon now, as it's slowly degenerating into the worst depths of fancruft. Some bits like cricket ball, badge and anti-radiation pills are just too generic and trivial. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at it myself. Feel free to continue to hack it to bits :).--Sean|Black 23:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you have a tendency to overdo the culling. A mere eight minutes after I entered the information about Tom Baker's annoyance about the destruction of the scarf in Peter Davison's first episode (I was a witness to the conversation), you deleted it.

I strongly disagree with your notion that this is "unnecessary trivia". Given the overwhelming association of the scarf with Baker's version of the character, his feeling on the subject is quite relevant.

Davidkevin 07:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more relevant to Castrovalva, as it's not really about the item itself, per se. I've moved it there, but you really need a citation for it; personal knowledge falls under original research, unfortunately, since it's not independently verifiable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think recorder should be re-instated as it is more notable than many of the items in the list - it was central in The Three Doctors. --TimPope 17:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think the premise of that culling, although well intentioned, leads to consequences outside of the Doctor Who narrative. Funny names for common items, or unexpected uses for common items, (ie a field gravitation device for a yo yo) is part of the Doctor Who story line. It would be as taking out the celery entry, which, while commonplace I'll grant you, really ignores it's role in defining the 5th doctor's character. Jahenderson

• While I'm on the subject, I think the FASA Doctor Who material, while certainly non-cannonical if they're taking liberties outside of broadcast, should still be presented, rather than summarily deleted. Certainly it should be tagged as such, but we allow material in books through (think about Lungbarrow), and I believe the people in the 1985 FASA were in pretty close consultation with the scriptwriters. In any event - there's my plea. Please don't delete the FASA stuff, especially when I've gone through the trouble to make sure it's rephrased to the point where it couldn't reasonably be charged with plagarism. Jahenderson

Virtually nobody takes the FASA material as canonical - really. And it's been contradicted by so much of the licensed fiction since them as to make them totally unuseful. If you want to set out an entire article just about the FASA material, perhaps, but in my view, to place them within the rest and then have to qualify them out of existence would lead to much confusion. And as far as I know the FASA people were not in any kind of close consultation with the production team; they were fans, and what they couldn't extrapolate from the series they just made up. If you have any cites to the contrary, though, feel free to present them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At the least, it seems to be no more or less confusing than any of the rest of the published spinoff books about the series. Moreover, they seemed to hew very closely to the broadcast narrative. Essentially what I'm saying is this: it's a reader's choice on how much weight they chose to give to the FASA people. Declaring it non-cannonical, and therefore contraband and to be omitted on sight, seems not inkeeping with the way the rest of the Doctor Who material has been treated. Moreover, the items we're debating about are things that (from my recollection) were directly addressed in the broadcast, and faithfully rendered in the 1985 FASA. I'm thinking about the yo yo, the dynatrope, and the dalekium. So, they would be cannonical, although I don't necessarily agree that that should be the standard. Thanks, btw, for correcting the 5th doctor~4th doctor error on my part with the yo yo.Jahenderson

[edit] Whomobile Ownership

Precisely when did the Whomobile become Jon Pertwee's property? I had read that it was built for him from the first, and added that it was his property. That was edited to that it became his property. Which was it?

Davidkevin 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was actually under the opposite impression, but I did some checking and you're correct. It was specially commissioned by Pertwee. I'll switch it back, with a cite. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort in clarifying this.

Davidkevin 22:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Superphone Upgrade

As of Rise of the Cybermen (and possibly earlier, someone else could clarify) Rose's phone has become a Samsung D500 (or similar model, but definitely Samsung.) - Should the Superpphone information be updated to reflect this, or is it not clear that this new phone has the same "Super" upgrade as applied to the 2005 series phone? The_B 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added that the Nokia has been replaced by the Samsung but I haven't mentioned if it is still a Superphone or not because we don't yet. GracieLizzie 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this now may become irrelevant as Mickey has since taken Rose's phone in The Age of Steel The_B 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood/Psychic Paper

It wasnt quite clear to me how their "training" enables them to not be fooled. J.J. Popplewick 09:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army of Ghost/Doomsdsy

Should we add all the various Torchwood Institute paraphernalia? Anti-weight clamps, interdimensional transporters, particle gun, ghost shift machine... etc. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic lance

I removed this from the sonic lance entry:

It was seen again later in the serial Robot as a small add-on to the Doctor's sonic screwdriver enabling him to cut through locks.

1. Was that tool called a sonic lance on screen? I thought the term was invented for Attack of the Cybermen.
2. Robot was earlier, not later. (Attack of the Cybermen was the previous referent.)

—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dalek tommy guns?

should we add the dalek tommy guns to this article?--Lerdthenerd 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] void ship

void ship redirects here but there is no mention of it.

Also, didn't the Sixth Doctor also use that umbrella? 67.5.157.76 00:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sixth Doctor's was a different, multi-coloured one.

The void ship can be found at List of Doctor Who vehicles. Someone with more time than me needs to sort out the links and redirects. Gwinva 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] timey wimey device

this item appears in Blink (Doctor Who) should we add it to this article.--Lerdthenerd 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vorpal penknife

I think, from context, it seems very likely the Doctor's kidding and this does not exist. Daibhid C 22:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tense and capitalisation

I've just redone a number of entries to bring them fully into present tense, as is generally preferred in describing fiction in Wikipedia. Some entries are currently past tense, some present tense, and some are both. Before I do much more work making it consistent, I just want to make sure nobody is wildly opposed to my doing so. Thanks! Also, I'd like to remind people that we don't capitalize "the" in "the Master" and "the Doctor", except at the beginning of the sentence. Oh, and if I fail to use a British spelling, please feel free to fix it. Thanks again! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-regeneration gun

Should this really be here, given that it's not a real device, was invented by Martha as a diversion and certainly didn't do what she said it would do?

Ah, but we saw it. It physically existed, even if its function was to deceive rather than to kill. This should probably be made clearer in the entry, but as an object that played an important role in a key episode, it should be listed IMO. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Past_Doctors.jpg

Just to let people know that the above image, used in this article, has been nominated for deletion. Anyone wishing to offer their opinions can see the discussion here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sonic lipstick- canon?

I'm not sure whether the sonic lipstick is canon. IMO, it is daft and I know this is irelevant, but surely this supports the "not canon" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoviangeekdude (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Is it to do with some change you want to make to this article? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see The Sarah Jane Adventures, and therefore the sonic lipstick is canon, but I agree about the sonic lipstick probably shouldn't be listed here (It has never appeared in Doctor Who), but it's not much of a strech to keep it here for now. Black Dalek 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)).

I've removed it for the time being. There ought to be sufficient space in the SJA articles to cover it without making any of them too long. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bananas!!!! - Really?

Should this article really include bananas? - I don't think it is neccesary. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Should it really include jelly babies? It's a big enough running joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Doctors severed hand.jpg

Image:Doctors severed hand.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationale provided for this image. If someone else wants to check the other images on this page to see if they've got appropriate rationales, that would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dalek human guns.jpg

Image:Dalek human guns.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done this one too, but I'd really rather not do all the rationales (hint, hint). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hint taken. I've done five, and my computer wants to crash now. Hope you don't mind: I cribbed my FURs from yours! --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Proclamation

Is someone going to recreate that entry here then? The original page has gone away. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as we know, the Shadow Proclamation is not an "item." It may be a decree, a treaty, an agreement, a group, a galactic legal authority or some combination thereof, but we don't know if it's an actual object (i.e. on a piece of paper on some planet somewhere). --Karen | Talk | contribs 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pocket Franestan

I recall a reference to a device named a Pocket Franestan in relation to The Doctor but I don't have a reference or context for it. Wondering if anyone has heard of it? The Pocket Franestan was described as a device that could be used to extricate oneself from any difficult situation, much like the Sonic Screwdriver. Daveymg (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progenation Machine