Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 January 2007 and 30 April 2007. Please add more discussions to this archive until the 30 April date is reached.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archive 12
Archive
Archives

Contents

Lengthy plot summaries

I noticed that a lot of Doctor Who episode articles have some pretty needlessly in-depth plot summaries, and I plan to condense a lot of these, but I have only seen the Eccleston and Tennant series. Anyone else interested in working on this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Needlessly is a POV, they are far from too long imo - (oh and I invoke Sir Not'a'Lot's law - you can't quote/etc to WP:NOT) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand your Wikipedia jargon, but just looking at The Empty Child, the plost synopsis is a beat-by-beat rundown of every single scene in the episode. That's excessive. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You think that's bad? Check out City of Death -- and mind that I shortened the first episode description by two-thirds. (compare the history, before and after!) --Aderack 03:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I take your point, Chris; referencing every scene and its outcome is not necessary to convey the plot. In particular, anything unnecessary to the plot but still of note should go in a trivia section (continuity, references, production, etc) and not in the summary. I don't have the time to focus on that, but I think you have the right idea. Best of luck. Radagast 16:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this before, and the general feeling was that the lengthier summaries, within reason, are preferred. Check the archives. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Khaos, just a note that length summaries are appreciated by some people (especially me) - I find a good decent plot summary improves an article ten fold, so from me to you, thanks! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best to throw up a rough definition of what a "lengthy" summary means? Approximately how many words per episode, for instance? It seems reasonable to have an upper wall. City of Death, before I chopped a (very) little out of it, was 6314 words long. That's well over 1500 words per episode. Yikes. If the entire summary were 1500 words, it would seem on the long end of acceptable.
I'm thinking a ratio of something like ten words per minute. Therefore a 25-minute episode would be 250 words; a 45-minute episode would be 450. A four-episode-long serial would be 1000 words; a six-parter would be 1500. Does this seem reasonable? --Aderack 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It certainly seems reasonable to me. We do not want to infringe on the owner's copyright, which is a real concern with situations like this. Summaries should be just that: summaries, and not abridgements of episodes. They shouldn't in any way be a substitute for watching the epsisode. I am very impressed with the organization and level of detail with these articles (other than the summaries, of course), but we should keep in mind that this is a general-use encyclopedia and not a Doctor Who Guide. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If may offer my opinion? Both City of Death and The Empty Child are largely dialogue-driven stories; it would make sense that the plots are larger than a more action-orientated one (eg. An Unearthly Child) or a story which no-one wants to go near (The Twin Dilemma - with good reason!!). Perhaps we could just leave them as they are - to trim a story so full of twists and turns as, say, The Doctor Dances could prove detrimental, rather than beneficial. - NP Chilla 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTCr

It is possible to paraphrase. The purpose of these summaries should be to illustrate story content; not to bullet point every exchange of dialogue. If a person wants to know every detail, that's what the actual episodes are for. For reference purposes, generalities win over specifics unless there's a specific purpose to the specifics. Too much clutter gets in the way of communication.--Aderack 09:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If I may quote the page on fair dealing, "Some higher education institutions in the UK interpret 'reasonable proportion' as... An extract from a book amounting to 5% of the whole or a complete chapter." An average 45-minute television script will be 45 pages, with a lot of whitespace so about 200 words per page, totalling about 9,000 words in the script. 5% of that would be 450 words, roughly. That's not a legal opinion, just an extrapolation of a guideline used by some British institutions on what would normally constitute fair dealing. For the sake of discussion, I won't question the notability of individual episodes, but I would think that any text beyond that 450-word guideline would be contextual information, not just descriptive, i.e. talking about characters, perhaps locations (either in-story or filming), story arc references or significance, other production details, etc. (I'm also hazy on the 45-minute-per-episode thing, it might be 50 or 60 minutes for some of these.)Avt tor 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Right; that fits the "ten words per minute" rule of thumb I was thinking about. Honestly, that seems like the most reasonable ratio to me -- roughly measured, of course. Any more input?--Aderack 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Seasons articles

Someone has created Doctor Who: Season One through Doctor Who: Season Six, in the past there have been a few of these and they have been redirected to the list of serials, but I think it ought to be raised and discussed to see what people think. Tim! 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think these are necessary. Given that we already have individual articles for every serial/episode, we don't need a season by season breakdown with synopses, not to mention screenshots (which he's left a space for). Given that we've had this discussion before, I'm going to go ahead and turn these into redirects before he makes more. (I'll probably try and find the old discussion in the archive first, so I can point to it on his talk page. If somebody beats me to it, feel free!) --Brian Olsen 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, scratch that - I can't actually find anywhere where this has been discussed before. The closest I could find was at the talk page for the serials list, but it doesn't look like any consensus was ever reached. I hate to just redirect a bunch of pages somebody created without at least being able to point to somewhere that says that we think it's a bad idea... --Brian Olsen 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ehh, really not necessary seeing since we've already have a list covering all the seasons (though, I'd rather it be details on the season {i.e. production} itself than the episodes therein). DrWho42 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree — there might be an argument for having articles on the production details of Doctor Who seasons, but there's no need for these lists. Between List of Doctor Who serials and the episode articles, they're redundant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've turned these into redirects to List of Doctor Who serials. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I believe I've standardized the various story templates (example) to the same look and format. They look a bit tidier now. There are a couple of issues, though. One, stories like The Five Doctors are becoming ridiculous; it seems to me there must be some other way of displaying the template information. Alternatively, perhaps articles that fall in the "minor references" category of a template shouldn't contain that template. Or maybe the "minor references" section is extraneous? I recall some debate about this a while back.

I'm also wondering about the brand new (Gallifrey) template — which felt like a good idea, as I often have trouble keeping track of which stories deal with Time Lord affairs. Also, these stories do trace a rough sort of a story arc, with the Eye of Harmony/Omega/Rassilon business, the Doctor's presidency, and the two trials. To make this template completely match the others, I can see a "minor references" section fitting in — though I'm not sure what a person might throw in there. What "minor Gallifrey references" might be worth listing? (Dialogue alone doesn't count, so no Runaway Bride or Time Warrior.)

Last thing: did I get all the templates? I don't know, as there doesn't appear to be a central resource for them. Are there any others besides Daleks, Cybermen, the Master, UNIT, and Gallifrey?--Aderack 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that for stories with more than two or three templates we should just link to the templates, sort of like

See Also

Gallifrey Stories
Master Stories
Cybermen Stories
Dalek Stories
Unit Stories

DonQuixote 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems functional.--Aderack 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Percy Snoodle has now made these templates collapsible, which I think is a good move. I don't have much (read: "any") knowledge of template syntax, but I've seen some templates where the default seems to be to have the template collapsed. This might be good to apply in these cases. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems to solve the problem. DonQuixote 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I knew there had to be something more elegant in the wings.--Aderack 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Return of Daleks in the Chronology

Couldn't (Shouldn't) "Return of the Daleks" be put in the 7th Doctor's Chronology? It can hand in hand with "The Veiled Leopard", since he is companionless and they are Doctorless? Should it be placed in release order with the rest of the Ace/Hex adventures? The Core-Man 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But the Doctor says that Ace and Hex are "all gone now". I think it's set later in his personal timeline. Of course, what you or I think is really irrelevant, because unless we can find a reliable source any placement is original research. Best to keep it as "placement unknown", I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Help

does anyone know where i can get a clip off the internet of the 2006 intro (the part where it shows the TARDIS in the vortex, "David Tennant" and then "Doctor Who") to put on powerpoint. it's for a project. plz reply on my user talk page. thx --I.W 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I really wouldn't put it past YouTube on having it. I'd say: once you find the clip/intro uploaded there, just ask the whoever uploaded it to send your way. DrWho42 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Box

The doctorwhobox on the right hand side of story pages contains various facts, but I wonder if the IMDB external link. Would this be better placed under External Links instead or, given that the link provides little or no additional information, should it be removed altogether? --The Missing Hour 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the IMDb link is pretty common for television and film articles: it's in {{Infobox Television}} and a lot of other templates in Category:Television infobox templates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Lord article nomination for Good Article

Please go to the Time Lord article and see its talk page as this article has been nominated for a GA status. However, the nomination is currently on hold and some changes have been suggested; please see the articles talk page! Smomo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Another project someone with energy could take on is ensuring that all our images have the proper license and fair use rationale. This is important because the rules on fair use are being constantly restricted and applied more thoroughly, and images that aren't properly tagged are subject to deletion. We need to make sure that all the images in our articles are properly licensed (use {{promotional}} for actual publicity shots, use {{tv-screenshot}} for screenshots). We also need to ensure that the images have an appropriate fair use rationale, fully explicated on the image page and indicated thus in the article:

<!-- FAIR USE of IMAGENAME.jpg: see image description page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IMAGENAME.jpg for rationale -->

(The last part isn't enforced very strongly, but it's probably still a good idea to include.) The rationale on the image page should be specific to each article that includes it: see Image:10thplanet.jpg for an example of a rationale dealing with several pages. That image page can be used as a model for screenshots, and Image:Daleknew.jpg is a decent model for images taken from publicity shots.

There are many editors on Wikipedia who would be happy to remove every fair use image from Wikipedia. Let's not help them, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed for our featured articles

LuciferMorgan (talk · contribs), the editor who put Dalek on featured article review (a process which it still hasn't passed, by the way) recently informed me that he's likely to put Doctor Who, TARDIS and Doctor Who missing episodes on FAR soon. I'm not sure whether they'll all be put up at once, or if they'll be staggered, but it would behoove us to start working on improving the citations for these articles now. The issue is that the standards for featured articles have been raised since these articles were promoted — in particular, they want specific citations for almost every statement.

To get an idea of the amount of work needed, you can take a look at the edits which Dalek has undergone since it was put on FAR [1]. I encourage all project members to work together on this: the number of featured articles we've achieved is one of the things that makes us stand out from other television WikiProjects, and I'm sure we all want to retain that distinction. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend we start with Doctor Who, given that it's our flagship article and should always represent the very best work we have to offer. I'm more than willing to help out where I can, and shall have a look at where I can start pitching in with some citations later on today. Angmering 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd personally recommend working on Dalek right now. It's over 2 months at Featured Article Review, twice the usual limit. If the article goes quiet for a few days, it may lose its star due to the prose objections by Tony1 (talk · contribs). Since the Project is kind enough to make valid attempts at improving its FAs, you're all free to ask me my critical opinion on the FAs and where I'd like to see citations - in saying this I mean without FAR, and in a more relaxed atmosphere. Once these problems are addressed, my advice would be to request Tony's critique, advice and help on the prose - if your articles ended up at FAR, he'll definitely spot prose issues. The worst example of a Wikiproject not addressing these problems is Beatles Wikiproject, which went from 11 FAs to 5 FAs in a short period of time - don't end up like them! Believe it or not, I'm not a bad guy, but just want FAs to be held to the current standards across the board.LuciferMorgan 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Right — after two months' hard work by both members of this Project and the folks at FAR, Dalek has been passed as a featured article. I've spoken with LuciferMorgan and a few of the other FAR editor/reviewers, and they said that they don't intend to nominate any of our featured articles for FAR at this point — but they can't stop anyone else from doing it. We can choose whether we want to focus on Doctor Who (as our "flagship article", as Angmering says above) or Doctor Who missing episodes, which it seems is our most undercited FA. Whichever we start on, I'd like this to be a concentrated group effort. Anyone want to help on this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out. I've already set the ball rolling by adding a couple of citations this evening. To be frank though, I think the Doctor Who article needs a lot of re-writing throughout rather than just a simple matter of adding references... But I'm sure we're up to it! Angmering 23:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This is true: the article could use some serious trimming. It's acquired a lot of cruft in one of the older meanings of the term: accumulated detritus that was useful at one point but no longer serves any real function.
One thing that might help is if we got around to creating an article for Companion (Doctor Who) (or Doctor Who companion, depending on what name we think is best). I started working on this a while back and began a draft here, but it sort of stalled out. Should we move that to article space and start working on it properly? If we did, we could then cut the section Doctor Who#Companions back and treat the article as a spin-out. (I know that's the least of the problems at Doctor Who, but every little bit helps, as the old woman said as she pissed in the sea.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think separating Companions from the main article is a good idea (and the draft looks good). Other sections that could be pruned (and teated in a similar way) are Doctor Who#Awards and Doctor Who#Viewership, which offer more detail than necessary on an introductory page. I think Doctor Who should be structured to appeal to the casual reader, not the fan: there are a lot of people who just want a quick reference or a bit of background to the New Series. Gwinva 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Charming phrasology, Josiah... Anyway, yes, sub-sectioning a lot of the excess info out as we did back with History, Doctor and later Missing Episodes seems good. Is it worth building a completely new draft of the page from the ground-up on a sub-page of the project here and then transferring that across, or is that sort of thing frowned upon? Angmering 07:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If doing an article on the companions of Doctor Who, it'd help to have critical reviews of the actress' performances in the role in newspapers and other publications, any awards they've recieved for the role etc. LuciferMorgan 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Remember that when citing from books, you need to cite specific page numbers. Footnote 4 in the flagship article doesn't do this, which can be raised as a concern. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Better? (Yes, I realise the second Handbook citation goes across 73 pages, but it's a detailed chronology of various production memos and documentation of the time building up from the show's conception to launch, and there isn't really one page there that covers the info being conveyed in the sentence here). Angmering 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved my draft to Companion (Doctor Who) — improvements, especially those incorporating LuciferMorgan's excellent suggestion above, are welcome and invited. (I've got a copy of David Howe's book Companions somewhere, which probably has some useful content — if anyone has a copy of John Nathan-Turner's book on the companions, that could be a good source as well.) The next thing is to move all those links from Category:Doctor Who companions to companion (Doctor Who) — I'll start on that tomorrow. (It's 2:30 am where I am, so I really should go to sleep.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Three days later, all the links are moved. Whew! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Novelisation Infobox

Since we've got the "In Print" section going for every serial novelised, I personally thought a novelisation infobox would be helpful for each of them (i.e. author(s), cover artist, novelisation that comes after, &c). DrWho42 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure — I certainly see the advantage for an infobox with author, publication date and cover artist. I'm not so sure whether "novelisation that comes after" is of much use — is anyone likely to read Target novelisations in publication order, or in the order of the number in the series? But that's a small point — a novelisations infobox in general is a good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but I can see convenience in linking to the novelisation published after (i.e. for collectors and so forth). They are already ordered in such the way along the List of Doctor Who novelisations. DrWho42 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the "In print" sections, I've noticed that on many serial pages "In print" is above "Production". This doesn't make any sense to me — it seems logical to me to discuss the novelisation after discussing the production of the serial it was based on. I've been moving these as I come across them, and at some point soon will probably go through the serial articles systematically to make sure that the sections are in a logical order. Unless anyone objects, that is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't and I shall do my part in helping out. DrWho42 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't object, but if you're going to do that, you should change the "Episodes" section on the main project page - that has a recommended order for sections, and "In print" is listed above "Production." --Brian Olsen 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've changed it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to create a template for novelisations? I'll apply them to all In print articles as soon as one's available. DrWho42 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mm, as far as what the template should (prolly) cover:

  • Book-title (obviously)
  • Book-cover
  • Author
  • Publication date
  • Cover artist
  • Number of pages
  • Preceded by/Following

Sounds good? DrWho42 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, anyone? DrWho42 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Funky, looks good to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me too. I'm still not sure whether the preceded by/following fields are necessary, but if other folks think they'd be useful I won't object too strenuously. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Use Template:Doctorwhobook?

Would we simply use the aforementioned template or create a new one for the Target Books? Some of the things listed are rather given.. DrWho42 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example through the use of that template:
Doctor Who book
Book cover
Doctor Who and the Dalek Invasion of Earth
Series Target novelisations
Release number 17
Writer Terrance Dicks
Cover artist David Mann
ISBN 0 426 11244 X
Release date March 1977
Preceded by The Seeds of Doom
Followed by The Claws of Axos

DrWho42 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty good — the only thing missing is a field for the cover artist, which we could add to the template. (I don't have time right now, so if someone else wants to fiddle with {{doctorwhobook}}, go to it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I added the cover artist field correctly. Smomo 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me — I made one very minor change ("Cover Artist" to "Cover artist", to match the cases of the other fields). Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Award, revisited

Last month, Smomo put up some possible Doctor Who barnstars for WikiProject use (see here). Unfortunately, the police box image he used is BBC copyright, so it can't be used on talk pages, per WP:FU. We've had limited success getting an attractive free image of a police box, but it occurred to me that if any project members are artists, someone could create one with CG and provide it with a free license. If we had a nice, freely licensed CG police box, we could use it where we now use Image:Police Box.JPG, in project templates and the like; it could also be adapted into a WikiProject award.

Do we have any CG artists in the house who'd be interested in this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be of interest that I have been told over on commons that fan-made images of the likes of the Daleks and the TARDIS, even fan taken photographs of fan-made replicas, are not allowed there as they are "derivitave works". As our TARDIS pic is hosted on commons, but nobody's deleted it yet, I am a bit confused as to what's going on, really. Angmering 23:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a mascot would be acceptable? Like Wikipe-tan? Something along the lines of K-9, but an original character? キー-10 (Kii-Ten) maybe? Or Wik-E? --GracieLizzie 00:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I'd rather have something that could be associated with Doctor Who at a glance. I suppose we could ask at WT:FU whether a CG police box would be OK here — I'd think that it would be, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate seems to be OK using this image and this one. Certainly, Commons is a lot more strict about that sort of thing than en is.
However, if it turns out that a police box is no good, maybe we could use a drawing of a scarf or a sonic screwdriver? We'll see. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Why can't it be a vortex? I don't think anybody owns the copyright to that in our continuum... DrWho42 06:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That would work too... although, again, it can't be a screenshot or anything. It would have to be something independently drawn. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the sonic screwdriver would probably cause the same problems as the police box, but I like the scarf idea... surely that won't contravene any copyrights. --GracieLizzie 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

Image:Policebox barstar.png

Geni 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit rough-and-ready, but it would certainly do. I'm completely image-inept, so my hat is off to Geni — thanks! (My inner pedantic fanboy wants to point out all the differences between the Earl's Court police box and the ones used in Doctor Who — but of course, my inner pedantic fanboy is a huge loser, and nobody should listen to him.)
If other people like this, I'll propose it to the relevant authorities. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm back again. While I like Geni's image, I have at last found a licensed TARDIS image that can be used on Wikipedia and so I have remade the two Barnstars I made before. Also, I like the idea of a sonic screwdriver barnstar, so I have made one of those as well. Feel free to use however you wish, and see the image page for the relevant copyright information.
Image:DoctorWho-Barnstar.pngImage:DoctorWho-Barnstar2.pngImage:DoctorWho-Barnstar3.png
Smomo 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright on the images you have added to the barnstars? I know I have seen those pictures before somewhere. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The copyright is owned by Rob Semenoff http://www.interocitor-media.com/tardis/. He allows use of his images for free as long as his name and a link to his website is stated as credit, and both of these have been put on the licensing information on the image pages, so we're OK to use them from that point of view. Smomo 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to check and see what the rules are for "Wikipedia-only" licenses for barnstars and the like. (The image licensing stuff is ridiculously complicated, and I know that there are some circumstances in which a license that says "you can use this on Wikipedia" isn't good enough. It seems ridiculous to me, but I suppose there are good reasons behind it...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A Wikipedia-only license seems perfectly reasonable for a graphic for pages in the talk or user namespaces. I don't think there are any plans to market the User namespace on DVD-ROM... Avt tor 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If it makes any difference, I asked some of the users on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en, and they seemed to think it would be OK. Hope it is... Smomo 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Shall I propose all of these, or shall we make a choice here first? (I like this one, myself.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should probably make a decision here first, to stop confusion later on. I prefer the second one most, or the sonic screwdriver one as a second. Smomo 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if Wikipedia-only licenses may be completely eliminated, even for innocuous uses like this. See this thread on WP:AN. Perhaps we should wait until the Foundation's statement is released — unless you want to contact Rob Semenoff and ask if he'd be willing to license the image under the GFDL or another free license? On the other hand, even that might not be good enough for the way the wind is blowing: Kat Walsh's letter suggests that except for a very few, extremely limited cases of free use en: will soon be as restricted as Commons, and Commons doesn't allow any derivative images. So we probably couldn't have any police box images whatsoever.

I'm rather disheartened about the whole thing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I get this isn't really a place to discuss this, surely the use of derivative images is really important for lots of uses on Wikipedia? I'm not really sure about the license either; he didn't explicitly say it could be used on Wikipedia, just anywhere where his name and link are present. Does this present a different situation, or is that what you mean by 'Wikipedia-only'?? Smomo 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The "derivative images" thing is a huge mess, and if it's interpreted as strictly as they do at Commons we're going to lose practically all our images. :/ But that's still to be determined. For now, I've asked about the image license thing at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... Frankly, I get confused by it all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Have we got any further with this? Smomo 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The answer I got at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Free use required that... wasn't encouraging. Smomo, perhaps you could discuss the situation there, and say exactly what permissions Rob Semenoff gave. Someone on that page may be able to explain the situation better than I can. You may need to ask Rob if he can license the image with a free license — one of the Creative Commons licenses (which include creator credit) might do. But as I said, I get confused by it all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is the situation as I understand it. The licesense isn't for only Wikipedia, its for anyone to use as long as they provide that basic information. So, as the way I see it, it would be acceptable for the use of this image in a WP Barnstar. In my opinion, it would be OK to submit the star for approval. Does anyone have a different view on the matter? Smomo 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep spinning our wheels on this. The question — which I still don't know the answer to — is whether it's kosher by Wikipedia's arcane image use rules to use an image that's credited as "Please include credits and links if used for distribution" for a Wikipedia barnstar. I would think that it would be OK, but I don't know for certain. I guess the thing to do is lay our cards on the table at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals and see what the folks there say. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE TO THIS PROPOSAL After an e-mail from myself, Rob has agreed to de-copyright this image and release it under a free license. He also provided me with two other TARDIS renders, also free of license. This solves our copyright problems here, and with using his TARDIS images in the future! I have updated the image page accordingly. This also means that the three TARDIS images Rob has released could be used elsewhere, in place of the TARDIS image we have for templates currently, for example. Smomo 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Assuming that these really are free of license (see my concerns at User talk:Smomo), I move that we replace the image in the project banner {{doctorwhoproject}} and {{doctorwhostub}} forthwith. :D —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, I sent Rob another email to confirm he was releasing this image to the public domain. He sent me this in reply:

“ I, Rob Semenoff, have irrevocably released all rights to this image, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution to myself, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to my site and my name would be appreciated. ”

I hope that clears things up :) Smomo 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Smomo! That's a big help. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Call for opinions

At Barnstar and award proposals, there's been a call for comments from WikiProject members about the proposed barnstar. Any interested project members should chime in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Application Completed

As of today, the application for our WikiProject Barnstar was completed successfully. The image and its template have been added to the WikiProject Barnstar page, and also to our WikiProject page. See there for more details. Smomo 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode titles should be in quotation marks, not italics

Just a note, because this appears to be pretty widespread: Television show episode titles need to be in quotation marks, rather than italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) for more information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this discussion not been had before? I'm sure it has. Ah yes, it has! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_10#Question_re:_style_guide - Also MOS states as well "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not demand perfection." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that we should not attempt to follow the manual of style? I have said nothing of the quality of writing, just that the titles look sloppy because they aren't formatted properly. This is not just how Wikipedia does things; this is general proper usage for title. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
They are formatted correctly. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, please go easy on Chris - it's a bit much to expect that someone should have to dig through an extensive series of archives just to find out why these articles deviate from the Style Guide. (I can relate, as I had the same question some months back.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
*scratches head* Go easy on him :\? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems to have been in the past Chris that as for the majority of the first three years of the programme we have both episode and story titles, it's more convenient to have the old-style individual episode titles in quotations and story titles in italics. This has carried on into the new series for reasons of consistency within the Doctor Who articles themselves. Angmering 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems odd that basic punctuation rules should be subject to a project-specific consensus. If there's really a debate on this topic it would belong on WP:MOS. Or to put that another way, continuing past mistakes is not a way to get GA approval. Avt tor 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by GA approval? Good article? Looking at the previous discussion on the subject, I think it is up for debate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggesting it can't be brought up for debate. With the original series, episode titles are in quotation marks; it's serial titles that are italicized. The question of whether episodes of the new series, which doesn't have serials, should be in quotes or italics does come up from time to time. The project consensus thus far has been to remain consistent with the original series, but I don't think there's any harm in opening it up to wider discussion, if someone thinks it's warranted. --Brian Olsen 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've thought for a while that we went the wrong way as a project on this one. Just to be clear, in case anyone's confused: the original Doctor Who series (1963–1989) was made up of multi-episode serials. For the first several years of the programme, each episode had an individual name: so, you would speak of "World's End", episode one of The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Beginning with The Savages, the individual episodes were no longer given names, but were identified as "The Savages, Episode 1" and so forth.

The new series (2005–) abandoned the serial format altogether; although there are some two-part stories, each episode has its own name. The previous decision had been that it would be disconcerting to refer to Spearhead from Space and "Rose" in close proximity, and that it would be better to italicize throughout. This decision was later extended to Torchwood (see here).

However, I'm not sure that the decision was correct. If consistency is a concern, perhaps we would be better off to lose the episode/serial distinction, and put all Doctor Who television stories in quotation marks. Alternatively, we could keep the episode/serial distinction for the classic series, but put the new series and Torchwood in quotation marks, in keeping with the manual of style. Either way, I think that we should try to bring our articles in line with the general manual of style — it would be rather hypocritical of me to say otherwise, given the long-running dispute in which I maintained throughout that when WikiProject guidelines contradict Wikipedia-wide ones, the Wikipedia-wide guideline should take precedence unless the reasoning for the WikiProject exception can be explained to the satisfaction of outsiders. I don't know if the reasoning for this exception is strong enough, frankly — so we should probably bite the bullet and change at least the 21st-century episode titles to quotation marks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as regards the new series (especially as it now also effects Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures). I'm torn on the classic, though - I'd hate to lose any differention between episodes and serials, but there doesn't seem to be a style guideline for how to indicate a collective name for a group of episodes. Should we toss this to the talk page for MoS (titles) and get some outside opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Olsen (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
I also concur, if for no other reason than that the modern single episodes are of a different format from the original serials — a point which is clearly stated on the list of serials. If anything, using different punctuation (and fonting) helps to draw the distinction and thereby justify the earlier usage of italics. The TV movie and other feature-length stories should remain italicized, for what I assume are obvious reasons. --Aderack 09:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is where things get confusing. The Five Doctors was originally broadcast as a feature-length episode, so would probably want to be in italics under a strict application of the MOS, whereas "The Two Doctors" would want to be in quotation marks. And then you get The Curse of Fenric, which was originally presented in a not very well edited 4-part version, and whose definitive edition is a re-edited and longer one-part story presented on DVD. How does that work?
What I'd suggest is, rather than discussing the procedural issue of what should take precedence, there should be an actual substantive discussion as to whether this sort of Doctor Who story naming weirdness is enough of a problem to justify making an exception: and if it is, actually codify that exception in the MOS, in a generalised way so that it would apply to other TV shows in the same situation. Morwen - Talk 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a Wikipedia-specific issue. Please ensure that any proposed changes to the English language are approved by appropriate authorities so that they can be distributed to all educational institutions where English is taught.
Standard usage in English says that standalone works (like books or films) and short works (articles, episodes, short stories, etc.) which are part of a collection (note that "magazine", "anthology", and "series" are all words meaning "collection") are shown simply in quotes.
There are various ways of organizing works where there is an intermediate level, such as "Volume", "Book", or "Season". This intermediate level is not standardized so a local standard could be defined. Though in most of the examples I've seen it is shown just as plain text in capitals, without italics or quotes. Avt tor 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Avt tor, part of what we're talking about is one of those "intermediate levels" — a multi-episode serial that is itself part of a larger work. I agree that putting modern-day Doctor Who episodes in italics is a problematic usage which we should probably alter. But we also need to figure out what to do about the first 26 years' worth of Doctor Who stories. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What? There is no standard English usage! The Oxford style certainly prefers that usage, although it allows for non-italicised, plain Roman (ie no quotation marks) for 'an ongoing series of books, journals and related sequences'. Thus: Doctor Who Rose or Doctor Who Series Title "Episode title". Associated Press style, however, uses plain Roman for names of periodicals, and quotation marks for book, film, TV show titles (ie "Doctor Who" not Doctor Who). There are plenty of 'standard usage' guides, all suggesting different ways of doing it, most for use in printed media, and all have changed over the years (it certainly changed in the move from handwritten to word-processing styles). Most publications and newspapers have an in-house style, adapted for their own situation. Wikipedia could well design its own (especially when we consider we are using a completely different media/encyclopediac form). Gwinva 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you figure on The Two Doctors? It's still a serial -- one of three rather long episodes! And I don't understand the conflict with Fenric, either. That is, unless you're suggesting that serials should be quoted rather than italicized.--Aderack 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this since my comments two above (out of time sequence as a direct response to Avt tor). The simple fact is (in my opinion) italics simply look better on the page. Now this is not as silly a reason as it sounds, if you will bear with me. Different organisations and media have established their own styles over time not to make a point but because it a practical solution for what they are doing. 3 examples: Newspapers tend to prefer straight Roman (or, at a pinch, quotation marks) as their wire transmission of information, or their typeface facilities, simply do not stretch to complicated punctuation. Manuscripts (ie handwritten) struggle with italics, so use underlining. Typescripts (for books and plays) also differ from 'standard' (they usually use Courier New font, also). Turning to another area, capitalisation has altered. 150 years ago, or so, almost every noun was capitalised. Now, with a lot of computer programmes not case-sensitive, and with the increase of email and texting, capitalisation is decreasing. A similar result -for different reasons- has arisen in academic history works. 'Correct' styling of personal titles requires capitalisation (the Queen of England; the Duke of Westminster), and this works because titled people are relatively few in number (ie not referred to every sentence). This is not the case in history writing, for most of the big players of the past were titled. It then became accepted practice, in academic circles, to say 'the queen of England' and 'the duke of Westminster' to save cluttering up the page with capitals (which makes it hard to read). This brings me back to my first point: "episode title" might be a good style for most situations, but when articles exist to discuss episodes, and which refer to them every few sentences, this becomes distracting, clumsy and hard to read. Episode title, on the other hand, works. Further complicating matters, quotation marks are used in 'standard usage' for more than episodes and magazine articles, but also to highlight text for a particular purpose, to show its not a real word, isn't what it appears to be, is a concept, or is a nickname or reference. Usually you can tell from the context of a work why it is used, but that is not so simple on these pages. Compare: "Bad Wolf" (running theme) Bad Wolf (episode); "Rose" (when its really Cassandra (New Earth)) and Rose (episode); "the Lonely God" (Face of Boe legend) The Lonely God (episode) or even the references in the text to the "Battle of Canary Wharf" (never an episode) and the wonderful "tribophysical waveform macro-kinetic extrapolator" (which I guess no one can mistake for an episode). We simply don't need a proliferation of quotation marks all over the articles.Gwinva 20:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you're running a Doctor Who fanzine you can do what you want. But if you want this to be part of Wikipedia, people are going to expect WP:MOS, which is where discussions about style should go. The reason for using a commonly-accepted style is so that people know what the heck you're talking about. If you use a non-standard style, it's going to be hard to move articles past B-class. Note that we're not just talking about text, but also the footnote citation templates, which you are not going to control. Avt tor 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
No one's trying to "control" anything — we're just pointing out that there was some reasoning behind the current style used in Doctor Who articles. I'm open to discussing this in a larger forum, and if that larger forum shows a consensus that we should change, I'll go along with the consensus there. See you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand the problem, which is why I phrased it the way I did. I don't have an opinion about the intermediate group-of-episodes entity that some are calling "serials"; I have a feeling you could get away with a provisional project-specific style for these. (Provisional, as I suspect that a consensus style will emerge eventually.) I'm making a prediction about what will happen if you ignore consensus, but other than that I'm not expressing an opinion. Specifically I certainly don't intend to change styles of existing articles, and the point about consensus on reference styles will be more strongly made if other people argue it. Avt tor 00:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We're calling them serials because that's the word for them. We didn't make the term up — it's what the reliable sources use. And incidentally, the current style wasn't a problem for Dalek when it was on Featured Article Review. (There were lots of other issues, but the fact that the article refers to Doomsday (Doctor Who) instead of "Doomsday (Doctor Who)" wasn't one of them.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Just voicing my opinion here Gwinva but I've always believed italics to be fugly and so try to avoid them if-I-can thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that we shouldn't just go with our own aesthetic judgments, but follow the usage of reliable sources. The problem we're facing is that generalist sources are more likely to use quotation marks for episodes and even serials, while specialist sources (such as Doctor Who Magazine, and practically all the works we'll be using as sources for our articles) use italics for both. I think that as we're part of Wikipedia as a whole rather than a "walled garden", we should yield to the generalist usage for episodes — but serials are still a grey area. We'll talk it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

10th doctor spin of companions.

in Battles in time issues 8 (The Ood: Slaves of the Beast!) to issue 11 (Clockword Robots: Automatic Assassins!) the 10th Doctor had a companion (Jayne Kadett). Can i put that on the 10th doctor's page so it looks like this.

The Doctor
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|actual size]]
The Tenth Doctor
Portrayed by David Tennant
Tenure 2005–?
First appearance The Parting of the Ways
Last appearance Ongoing
Number of series 1 to date
Appearances 12 stories (15 episodes) to date
Companions on television Rose, Mickey, Donna.
in spin-offs: Jayne Kadett
Chronology
Preceding Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston)
Succeeding Unknown
Series Series 2 (2006)

Also can i make a page/section on Kadett. what does anyone else think. plz notify me on my userpage when u reply on here. thx. And in Doctor Who Adventures issues 20 and 21 the Doctor befreinds Kara McGravy, and in issue 22 and 23 (possibly 24 if the story goes over 3 issues ect , which is not ussally the case) he befreinds Daisy White. Are these concidered spin-off companions or are they people the Doctor just meets in a place he's visiting. McGravy hasn't travelled in the Tardis (not in the comic anyway) and neither had White, not yet anyway. wat do u think?--I.W 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I'd say it depends on whether the comics that Kadett appears in constitute one story, or several stories. (I haven't read Battles in Time.) If it's one story, I'd say that she doesn't quite qualify, but if it's more than one story you could add her to Tenth Doctor as you suggest, and also add her to List of companion characters in Doctor Who spin-offs. I'd hold off on Daisy until the DWA story ends, to see if she travels with the Doctor or not, but if she does she could be added too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Kadett appears (as i said above) issue 8 to 11--I.W 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but is that four different stories, or one story in four parts? Or two two-part stories? That's what I'm asking. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
it's sort of 1 stroy in 4 parts, but it's not a case of cliffhanger, e.g at the end of issue 8, they are in the destroyed Cyber-base, but in issue 9 they are in a sort of airport took over by the cybermen. And she does travell in the TARDIS. --I.W 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a companion to me, then. If Olla the Heat Vampire can be listed on Seventh Doctor, I don't see any reason why Jayne Kadett can't be listed for the Tenth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If any project members have access to the relevant issues of Doctor Who Adventures, please do add Jayne Kadett to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions and the infobox in Tenth Doctor. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be best formatted "Jayne Kadett (books)", primarily as it could possibly be removed by somebody who only watches the television series. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The character is from the comics, not the books, and I presume that if it's listed as "in spin-offs" with a link to the entry at List of companions from Doctor Who spin-offs (or whatever it's called today) that would be sufficient explanation. See box to right.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Great Debate: a possible solution

Style guides exist to promote the delivery of clear English, not to lay down rules for the sake of the rules; punctuation, fonts and other textual conventions have developed so that a writer can make his meaning clear. The formats currently used by the Doctor Who Wikiproject are clear and internally consistent, aiding in an understanding of the whole Doctor Who genre. This is not a reason alone to retain the status quo, but it is when combined with the fact that reversion to the general Wikipedia usage would lead to unclear and imprecise writing. Quotation marks are also used for quotes, song titles, themes ("Bad Wolf"), temporarary names or designations (eg "Rose" who is really Cassandra (New Earth and "the Lonely God"), in-universe events ("Battle of Canary Wharf") and neologisms ("Tribophysics"), all of which occur frequently within the Doctor Who pages and are often linked (ie appear in blue text like the episode titles). For a quick example of a quotation-mark reversion see User:Gwinva/sandbox. Coupled with that is the unusual Doctor Who format that involves serials as well as episodes.

However, rather than proposing at Wikipedia style forums that Doctor Who should be an exception to the rules, it would perhaps be more sensible to propose that Doctor Who is re-categorised. Let me explain. As the 'brand' originated in Britain, the Doctor Who pages on Wikipedia follow the British usage for style. The most accepted British style guide is The Oxford Guide to Style. It, of course, promotes italics for series and quotation marks for individual episodes, but also states (in section 6.3):

"Use roman without quotation marks for an ongoing series of books, journals, and related sequences of publications, if each volume within the series has an individual title."

You therefore get: Encyclopedia Britannica Dal-Lek, Virgin New Adventures Lungbarrow. The format is not without precedent in television as you get things like (my mind's gone blank so imaginary example) The Warring World documentary When the Earth Blew Up.

Doctor Who is more than a television series, it is a genre, an institution, a brand, a 'regular slot on television'. Argue in the approriate Wikipedia forums that Doctor Who should be re-classified as 'a related sequence of publications, films and television stories', then each episode, serial, film, novel, comic (and possibly even short story) requires italicised titles. Individual episodes within serials (like chapter points) use "episode" or, more correctly in Oxford style 'episode'. This format leaves Doctor Who used for the TVM only, as Doctor Who would be used everywhere else. It's easy enough to say 'the televison series first showed...' when explicitly referring only to that.

But all this is only relevant if Doctor Who WikiProject members like the current format. Gwinva 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey — I like the current format, I'm just not sure it's defensible in the larger context of Wikipedia. Your proposal is very interesting, Gwinva, and it would certainly work within the context of Doctor Who, but I don't know whether it can be sustained in a larger context. I can see the argument you're making, and indeed there are a lot of contexts in which when we say "Doctor Who" we're referring to more than the television series. But there are also contexts in which we are talking specifically about the television series. Would we try to distinguish between the two usages? Would we say, for example, "The base under siege is a standard Doctor Who story" (speaking of Doctor Who as a brand, or style of storytelling), but "Doctor Who performed better in the Saturday evening BBC1 slot than Robin Hood did" (speaking of Doctor Who as a television programme)? Would we say "Doctor Who is the longest-running science fiction television series in the world" but "Doctor Who has spawned spin-offs in multiple media"? It's an intriguing idea, but I don't know whether we'd be able to sell it to Wikipedia-at-large. Hm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We certainly wouldn't want to solve one problem by creating another, so we'd have to consider carefully how we use the title Doctor Who. The whole proposal is based on the fact Doctor Who is a blanket term for a whole host of individual stories. As soon as you need to say Doctor Who (the series) the argument falls apart: further sub-sets of italics should be in quotation marks. Therefore you would have to use qualifiers; ie. just as you say: The Doctor Who novel Lungbarrow you'll need to say the Doctor Who episode Rose, and refer to the televison series thus: "The Doctor Who televison series is the longest running science-fiction televison series..." Whoops, clumsy example, have to think about that. "The televison series performed better than Robin Hood...". "Series One was a great success" (not Series One as that pushes episodes into sub-sets). Basically with Doctor Who (plain roman) as an umbrella term, then each complete, titled, story should be in italics. This includes even the modern two-parters, for they are titled individually (like separate novels in a trilogy or omnibus). The beauty of this formatting is that it does not go against the accepted Wikipedia style conventions as long as Doctor Who can be considered (as I said above) 'a related series of publications, films and television stories'. I would think most would go along with that, other than the purists who will only consider the television series worthy of the title. What do others think?Gwinva 12:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting and subtle argument. I worry that it might be too subtle for general use — and, of course, there are plenty of pages where there's no way to avoid talking about "just the television programme" (e.g. List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC). I had a similar discussion about Star Trek vs. Star Trek at Talk:Canon (fiction) way back in October 2005, and I think it ended up with a similar but perhaps slightly different conclusion: to say "Star Trek" when speaking of the franchise, but Star Trek when speaking of the television series: so, "the Star Trek universe" or "the pluralistic ideals of Star Trek", but "the Star Trek episode "Day of the Dove". However, I'm not sure how widely applied that conclusion was. It's worth discussing at WP:MOS-T. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, I think it gives me a headache... Angmering 23:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I realise that not everyone would argue all day over the niceties of punctuation and formatting but, strangely enough, I could. Do tell me to stop if you are thoroughly bored. As far as I see it, the Doctor Who WikiProject have three options. 1. Change formatting in line with Wikipedia style and give episodes quotations. To be consistent, the serials should be also, with episode titles used as subtitles (eg. "Serial:Episode"). 2. Use the current format and plead at WP:MOS that Doctor Who is an exception to established style. 3. adapt my proposal above. It would be easy to implement (when approved) and easily explained. A template could be placed on each talk page saying something along the lines of:
In the context of Wikipedia, Doctor Who is a related series of publications, films and television stories. It should be rendered in plain roman. The titles of novels, films and televison stories (episodes) should by displayed in italics.
Josiah rightly points out that Doctor Who is mentioned on many other pages. These would need to conform. Can use 'Doctor Who televison series' if it is not obvious from context. This is all just my suggestion. I wouldn't presume to discuss it at WP:MOS-T until there was some consensus amongst Doctor Who project members. Gwinva 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Master

The major incarnations of the Master. Left to right: Roger Delgado, Peter Pratt, Anthony Ainley, Eric Roberts.
The major incarnations of the Master. Left to right: Roger Delgado, Peter Pratt, Anthony Ainley, Eric Roberts.

With the apparent first-hand confirmation of Simm's casting (see the Master (Doctor Who) or List of Doctor Who serials pages), the Master page might demand a bit of a revamp. This might be jumping the gun slightly, as the BBC has yet to give the go, though I figure we might as well start thinking about it.

The Doctor (Doctor Who) page might be a good place to start: put a picture of Simm at the top; give a procedural rundown of the previous major incarnations of the Master. Since we've never actually had the nature of the Master's various incarnations clarified for us, it probably would be difficult to create individual pages for each. It would make some sense, therefore, to differentiate them within his overall page. Ainley's portrayal was different from Delgado's, for instance. (In the Traken commentary, he mentions that JNT promised to give him some of Delgado's performances to study; he never followed up, leaving Ainley to recreate the character from scratch. It was only years later that he had the opportunity to watch the videos and study how Delgado had played the part. Roberts' Master was... a departure. Simm's will probably be completely different again.

I guess there are a couple of reasons for my posting this. One, I'm looking for input on when would be a good time to go ahead and edit the page; two, I'm looking for further ideas on how best to revise it.--Aderack 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A collage like this would be great, too! --Aderack 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a fantastic idea! But can we be sure that Peter Pratt and Geof Beevers played the same incarnation? If we can (and I'm quite sure we can), there is no fault with fashioning a picture such as this whatsoever. - NP Chilla 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a collage like this, but I think we should hold off on including Simm until it's officially confirmed by the BBC. I assume it's true (based on the Independent article), but I think putting an image of Simm on Master (Doctor Who) is jumping the gun a bit — especially since it will be an image of the actor, rather than the character (we probably won't have any images of him as the Master for some time).
Of course, all this is assuming that fair use images like these will even be permitted on Wikipedia in future, something which I'm not at all sure of. I'm pretty disheartened by the way the wind is blowing in that department... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right - that seems to be the wisest course of action. - NP Chilla 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the BBC is going to try to keep the lid on this as long as possible. Judging by how weirdly evasive Simm was on the radio, it seems pretty much certain — and yet it also seems like the BBC isn't going to be coaxed into spilling the beans until it's good and ready. And, well, good for them. Good point on the actor, though I recall that images of David Tennant were used as placeholders before the broadcast of Parting of the Ways; I figured this was a similar circumstance.--Aderack 21:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That's slightly different, because the BBC confirmed that Tennant would be playing the Doctor pretty soon after the news leaked. This time they're staying schtum. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the Pratt/Beevers Master: there's nothing specific in the episodes to confirm that they're the same incarnation, though it seems self-evident that this was the intent. If we take a step out-of-universe, there's discussion on the Traken DVD about the costuming. Originally Beevers was to have worn the same face mask as Pratt; he complained, saying he could give a better performance if the audience could see his own eyes. So the intent is clear from at least a production standpoint. The question is, then, whether we take an in-universe or an out-of-universe perspective on the matter. To put it another way, although we can't be positive that they are the same incarnation, within the fiction, we can be sure they were meant to be.--Aderack 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed.--Aderack 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that, whatever the production team's intentions, different actors played the character in The Deadly Assassin and The Keeper of Traken, I think it's slightly misleading to use both names in the image caption. We should probably either include images of both actors in the role, or caption only the ones we choose to feature. (To put it another way: the makers of the TV Movie may have intended Gordon Tipple to be playing the same version of the Master that Anthony Ainley played, but we shouldn't caption a picture of Ainley as "Anthony Ainley/Gordon Tipple".) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Noted--Aderack 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that Pratt and Beevers are meant to be playing the same incarnation. Smomo 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I actually find this an interesting problem -- and maybe one worth discussing in a more general sense. How do we interpret a fictional work like Doctor Who? In a vacuum based on its fictional content, or in the context of its production? Once created, does the work stand on its own for analysis or in the case of conflict does authorial intent supersede the face value of the fiction? Furthermore, assuming there is no correct answer to this discussion, what is the most appropriate standpoint to take for the purpose of Wikipedia? Generally, I'm inclined to say the more detached the perspective, the more useful as a research tool -- which is in theory what we're creating here
What about this Master thing, though? Is the production intent enough to conclude that the two actors are playing the same role? If that's all we're looking at, I'd say yes. Clearly so, even. The problem rises when we start looking to the fiction as an authoritative source; though the implication is clear, at no point does it absolutely confirm the issue. What I'm wondering is if fiction may be cited as a reputable source of information about its own fictional content. From a lay perspective, this is an obvious stance to take. The problem in doing so within an encyclopedic context is that art is by nature interpretive. Any conclusions derived from that interpretation (including apparent inconclusiveness) therefore veers close to POV -- which in theory we're trying to get away from. This, I suppose, is the origin of the "out of universe" argument that keeps popping up.
Preliminarily, I'd say production intent -- where available -- is the most encyclopedic source on a fictional work. Popular, published interpretations would come next. The work itself should come as a final consideration, and then only in a descriptive rather than a conclusive capacity.
So what does this mean about the Master? Though on the surface to do so seems close to making original conclusions on an inconclusive issue, it looks like it would be most encyclopedic to go with the production intent and define the Pratt/Beevers Master as one entity. If there is any popular, published controversy on the issue, then it can be cited. I don't know that it's appropriate to even point out the lack of explicit confirmation within the fiction, unless one of the higher sources brings up the issue. It's not really our place to put the problem on the table; merely to present it if it's already been raised.
My question is, then, are there any significant works that investigate the issue?--Aderack 14:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of Category:Doctor Who producers, Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures producers and Category:Torchwood producers. Tim! 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV directors by series (which includes Category:Doctor Who directors and Category:Torchwood directors) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV writers by series (which includes Category:Doctor Who writers, Category:Torchwood writers and Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures writers). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles with awarded status

I'm building a list of the articles that we have edited to a good standard that have received awards (GA or FA) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Awarded_articles. Please can you contribute any articles you know of with awards, especially GAs, at that page. Thanks. Smomo 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

How's work progressing on improving Doctor Who related FAs to the current standard? It'd be nice to know. LuciferMorgan 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that much progress, to be honest. I had hoped that other project members could take the lead on this, but there hasn't been a lot of work done. I suppose I'll try to work on Doctor Who this week. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I want to pitch in, but real life keeps getting in the way. I added a few episode citations to the Format section of Doctor Who - does that look right? I don't want to do too many if I'm messing something up. And is there no way to use the "cite episode" template with the serials without them showing up in quotation marks? (On a side note, I changed "Mission to the Unknown" to quotes, from italics - it's only one episode, so I don't think we should list it as a serial.) --Brian Olsen 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks good to me — the only change I'd suggest (and I've made it in the entries you added) is not to link Doctor Who in the entries on that page, since any link back to the page you're on shows up in bold instead of as a link. I think you're right that any time you use {{cite episode}} the serial name will show up in quotation marks. When I was working on Dalek I found that many of the citations could be to specific episodes rather than to serials, which solved that problem, but I think we won't have as many opportunities to do that in Doctor Who. (Of course, the entire issue of italics vs. quotation marks hasn't really been resolved, despite Gwinva's interesting suggestion above... but that's another matter.)
One tiny detail that I don't know if anyone's noticed: the first four serials were broadcast on the BBC, not BBC1. (BBC1 was named as such when BBC2 debuted, in April 1964.) So we can probably drop the "channel" field in any citations of An Unearthly Child, The Daleks, The Edge of Destruction and Marco Polo. (If we want to be really pedantically accurate, we can use "BBC1" for the original series and "BBC One" for the new series, since the channel changed its official name in 1997.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! And I'm smacking myself about linking back to the same page. I kept trying to work out why those were in bold, and finally just gave up. Regarding your other notes - would you consider writing a "Citations" or "References" section for the main project page? With all the work you did on the Dalek page, I would say you're most qualified to do so, and I know I would find it handy to have all that info in one place. --Brian Olsen 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea — I'll do that in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously I didn't get around to creating the "Citations" section or subpage this week, for a bunch of reasons (including being distracted by the Essjay affair). Before all that happened, I had asked about citation format at Template talk:Cite episode. It turns out that there's no standard on Wikipedia for what credits need to be included in a footnote citation for a television episode. The citations I provided at Dalek were based on a now-removed example at Template:Cite episode. There, I listed writer, director and producer thus:

The MLA Handbook is flexible about what credits are to be included, saying "for the inclusion of other information that may be pertinent (e.g. performers, director, narrator, number of episodes), see the sample entries." There aren't many sample entries for episodic fiction television, and they include performer and director. I figure we should get a consensus here about which credits are important for Doctor Who episode citations, and how best to include them. Should we include "Performer William Hartnell"? Should we reduce the number of credits, and merely allow the reader to be pointed to the episode's page for more details? Which credits do y'all think are important in a footnote? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it at writer, director and producer, and leave performing credits for the serial's page — given that we have a page for every serial / episode, I think that's sufficient. People can easily follow the link for further information. Angmering 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree - writer, director and producer are sufficient. I fear performer will lead to a mass of confusion, with more and more actors' names being added to every citation. --Brian Olsen 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Made of Steel

Is anyone going to create a page for this? We have one for I am a Dalek.

The page will be made eventually. It takes a little while to make pages, but I am confident that it will appear soon. --Thelb4 08:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've started it :) could someone who has read the book at a synopsis? --GracieLizzie 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't receive my copy yet (still waiting on Amazon) but I have added some information, such as the fact this is the first New Series-related project to involve writing personnel from the original series, and that Dicks has now written something for every line of DW fiction except the Telos books. And at 112 pages. MoS is actually longer than some of his Target books! Also made a correction - Adeola wasn't in Doomsday. 23skidoo 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

UNIT dating controversy up for AFD

Apparently on the basis of some timeline-related article on The West Wing being successfully deleted (on its third nomination) recently an editor as decided that UNIT dating controversy has to go as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNIT dating controversy. 23skidoo 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who and Template:Torchwood

The presence of {{Torchwood}} on Doctor Who pages such as The Christmas Invasion and Doomsday (Doctor Who) seems to be confusing passing editors. I know that the original intention was to add the template to Doctor Who episodes which seeded Torchwood, or dealt with the Torchwood Institute. But what's happening now is that editors who come upon the page think that {{Torchwood}} is meant to be for episodes of Torchwood, and are replacing it with {{Doctor Who}}, or adding {{Doctor Who}}. Right now, {{Doctor Who}} is not generally used on episode pages, but now that it's nice and collapsible I don't see any reason why it couldn't be. I think that if the pages have both {{Doctor Who}} and {{Torchwood}} on them (as Doomsday (Doctor Who) does at the moment), that will be less confusing to readers and editors than having {{Torchwood}} and {{Doctor Who}}. Does anyone disagree? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree - but perhaps it would be simpler to redirect {{TorchwoodInDoctorWho}} to {{Torchwood}}, then include {{TorchwoodInDoctorWho}} in those pages; that way, the correct template would be included, but the intention would be clear. Percy Snoodle 11:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think episodes require the template. If the mention of Torchwood is enough to warrant a link, then it's mentioned explicitly in the production/continuity notes anyway. I can see there being lots more Torchwood Institute appearances in Doctor Who, and I can see the use in making {{TorchwoodinDoctorWhoTVstories}} template to match the UNIT one. I can't see use in connecting it to Torchwood characters / actors / items is, though.~ZytheTalk to me!
Personally, I think that the {{Torchwood}} template in its current form doesn't belong on Doctor Who episode pages, especially if there is no Doctor Who template there already. If Torchwood is an active element in the episode, it should be included on the page, but not in the form of that template. Smomo 13:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode issues

So I've got before me Doctor Who: The Inside Story, "The Definitive Guide to the Making of the New Series", written by Gary Russell. It's got a particular numbering system for the episodes, which I took the liberty of applying to the list of doctor who serials in place of the arbitrary one that had been adopted while we were waiting for any official scheme to present itself. The portion of the book that deals with the individual episodes is split up into sections, each headed by a huge two-page spread and original Photoshop collage. On the upper-right, in huge letters, it says "SERIES ONE" or "SERIES TWO"; underneath that it lists the episodes, using the numbering scheme in question.

Something else I notice is that it makes a point of including both the Children in Need special and The Christmas Invasion as part of series two. They're not split off into their own section, or given separate treatment. They're listed, right there, as part of the series. Their numbering also reflects this. Well, the Christmas numbering; the Children in Need skit is left blank.

Oh, also the CIN skit is named the other way 'round from how we've got it listed here: "Children in Need: Doctor Who".

So. Thoughts?--Aderack 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is one of how much authority do we attribute to sources. Despite The Inside Story being published by the BBC, the information in it may or may not have any more validity than any other source, given that the BBC is so vast and one arm doesn't necessarily speak for another (that was one of the difficulties we faced when we were deciding about An Unearthly Child over 100,000 BC). To wit, just because it comes out from a "BBC" source doesn't mean anything on its own; what's more important is whether it comes from an actual production source. So Gary's numbering (which is fine by me, don't get me wrong, since our previous one was just as arbitrary) is just another scheme waiting to be superceded at some point.
As for the CiN special, the "Doctor Who: Children in Need" comes from production notes, as stated in the DWM Series Two Companion, so there's at least a source quoted which can be said to be reliable. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets talk about images!

What with the release to the public domain of several good quality TARDIS images, might now be the time to update all of our templates and logos? I propose the new TARDIS image, Image:TARDIS1.png, be used instead of the old police box image we use currently. Any thoughts? Smomo 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. All in favour? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Angmering 09:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I Agree but stick the doctor who logo under it --Madcow 93 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't possible because the Doctor Who logo is a copyrighted image, and these templates will be used outside of article space. (Wikipedia's fair use guidelines forbid the use of copyrighted images outside of article space. The advantage of this new TARDIS image is that it has been released into the public domain.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So, is everything OK to go ahead and do this? Smomo 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Make it so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done it. Smomo 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Lookin' good! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"Make it so?" Good grief... Anyway, the new TARDIS image looks good in all the templates! Angmering 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What, I can't like Star Trek too? ;) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with liking Star Trek. However, using phrases such as "Make it so" is almost as bad as those people who like to use the expression "when the universe was less than half its present size" to describe something that happened a very long time ago. Angmering 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Miaow!! Saucer of milk for Mr Angmering. ;) - NP Chilla 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

More CFDs

The lastest CFD nominations are for Category:Doctor Who people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Category:Doctor Who composers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Category:Doctor Who novelists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Category:Doctor Who story editors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

List of Doctor Who actors has also replaced the cast members category... Tim! 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

and List of Doctor Who directors... Tim! 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Bollocks, I forgot to rescue the table of actors with classic and new series actors before the page was deleted. Angmering 11:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


List of actors appearing in both the "classic" (1963–1989) and new (2005–) series of Doctor Who:
Actor Classic story Role New story Role
William Thomas Remembrance of the Daleks Martin (the undertaker) Boom Town Mr Cleaver
Nisha Nayar Paradise Towers Red Kang (uncredited) Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways Female Programmer
Pauline Collins The Faceless Ones Samantha Briggs Tooth and Claw Queen Victoria
Elisabeth Sladen Various Sarah Jane Smith School Reunion Sarah Jane Smith
John Leeson Various K-9 (voice) School Reunion K-9 (voice)
Colin Spaull Revelation of the Daleks Lilt Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel Mr Crane
Margaret John Fury from the Deep Megan Jones The Idiot's Lantern Grandma Connolly
Gabriel Woolf Pyramids of Mars Sutekh The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit The Beast
Bella Emberg The Time Warrior Hag (uncredited) Love & Monsters Mrs Croot
David Warwick The Pirate Planet Kimus Army of Ghosts / Doomsday Police Commissioner
Anne Reid The Curse of Fenric Nurse Crane Smith and Jones Florence
Trevor Laird The Trial of a Time Lord — Mindwarp Frax Series Three (Episodes T.B.A.) Clive Jones

There are some benefits to administrator-hood ;) Tim! 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, well done Tim. Question now is where should it go? On the list of actors page? Angmering 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think so — I'll put it there for now, at least. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What about adding people who've appeared in the Classic Series and Torchwood? Or people who have appeared as different characters in the new series and Torchwood? I'm thinking of John Normington (Trevor Sigma - The Happiness Patrol, Tom Flanagan - "Ghost Machine") and Yasmin Bannerman (Jabe - "The End of the World", DI Kathy Swanson "They Keep Killing Suzie"). --GracieLizzie 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont forget the little girl in Small Worlds who also appeared in the house in The Idiots Lantern.

Nigel Kneale

Not directly related to the project, but I'm posting this here as it seems to be the place where it's likeliest to be noticed by those who might be interested. I've done a lot of work on this article, and currently have it up as a featured article candidate. It's not attracting many votes, however, so if you do get the chance to read it and cast your vote for yea or ney I'd be very grateful. Yes, I know it's an article about a man who loathed and detested Doctor Who, but I think he deserves a decent Wikipedia article and I know that many fans of Who are also fans of his work, hence my posting this here. Cheers all. Angmering 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This has now passed its nomination and made FA status. Soon there shall be more Quatermass FAs than Doctor Who ones. Oh yes. Then the world shall be mine, mine! Mwahahahahahaha...... Etc and so forth. Cheers all! Angmering 11:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Laws of Time (Doctor Who) → Time Lord

I suggest merging the new article Laws of Time (Doctor Who) into Time Lord. Tim! 09:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur; not enough content there to merit a new article, and I can't really see how you could expand it so much as to make it good enough for its own article. Smomo 15:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I also concur with a merge. Matthew
I agree as well - not enough for a real article. --Brian Olsen 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge, unless it is pushing the Time Lord article into being overly long or something. If it isn't then yes, there is far to little info in Laws of Time (Doctor Who) to warrant it being a stand-alone article. --GracieLizzie 17:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else have a problem with the in-universe perspective and unreferenced nature of this article? I'd plonk for deletion, myself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is that...were the Laws of Time ever spelt out like this - and numbered like this - in the series? --Brian Olsen 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If they weren't then perhaps a deletion would be better. Or a merge which the laws are altered from a list of "rules" to a more generally descriptive paragraph. --GracieLizzie 22:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd go for deletion as well. As far as I can tell, the entire thing is original research. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the creation of a section on the Laws of Time in the Time Lord article, but I agree that the Laws of Time article seems too much like original research. I do not recall any occasion on which the laws were numbered like this; all we know is the first law. The others might possibly derive from novels or conjecture -- but this needs to be sourced. As it stands if someone were to nominate it for WP:AFD I'd have no choice but to vote to delete it. GracieLizzie has the right idea -- let's just create a paragraph on the Laws of Time. Incidentally, to be fair, I have advised the creator of the article about this discussion and have also requested he/she add sources to the original article as soon as possible. If this is done, it might make it easier to decide what (if anything) should be merged ... or even if the article should be kept on its own. 23skidoo 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Laws of time were a great idea, although as stated they dont exist, unfotunatly no choise but deletion.--Wiggstar69 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a {{prod}} tag to the article — this gives the page's creator five days to provide sources or otherwise improve the article before it's deleted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-fiction books

Is there an article on non-fiction Doctor Who books? I'm wondering if there should be a place to list things like Travel without the TARDIS or Jean-Marc Lofficier's multi-volume programme guides for Target, or for that matter works such as The Making of Doctor Who or the recent Doctor Who: The Inside Story? 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Canon

Is it really necessary that every bloody article about the books and so on has to have that line about 'the canonical status is disputed'. It seems rather childish and Un-encyclopedic. They're also all printed with black ink on white paper, that seems about as relevant as tedious debates on internet message boards which is all 'canon' really amounts to. 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, putting it there is pretty much a requirement.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep — the general consensus from previous discussions seems to be that when we present information from non-television sources, it's a violation of NPOV and NOR not to have that disclaimer, because otherwise people might interpret its inclusion as a claim that the books (audios, comics, lollipop wrappers, whatever) are a "canonical" part of the Doctor Who narrative — and Wikipedia should neither make nor refute that claim. Yes, "canon" is a fairly absurd concept that really matters only to the sorts of people who habituate Outpost Gallifrey's forum (of which I am, of course, a prime example) — but it's not unlikely that someone reading an article on, say, United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, might be one of that sort. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the wording: as it stands, it implies that there is a real thing called "canonical status", but that's actually a shorthand for a complex set of notions, many of which are fan-derived and drifing into original research and non-verifiable territory. Unlike some other TV shows, Dr Who doesn't have a defined canon from the BBC. Moreover, saying the canonical status is "disputed" over-emphasises the dispute, which is largely confined to fans, when most of the BBC and most people who watch/read Dr Who simply don't care. We're being biased (violating NPOV) if we stress the dispute but underplay, say, the contractual nature of the works: i.e. whether they were officially licensed by the BBC, or even produced by the BBC. Bondegezou 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Category:Doctor Who people

For anyone interested please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Tim! 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph on the ICIS page

In the Internal Counter-Intelligence Service article there is the following paragraph under ICIS Dating which doesn't look quiet right to me:

The UNIT audios were set in "the near future", with Andrea Winnington said to have been born in the 1980s and Chaudhry taking about the price of alcohol in euro in "The Longest Night"; presumably it was intended to take place in the mid-to-late 2000s. However, the general public in the plays does not believe in alien life; since this was proven to exist in The Christmas Invasion, the plays must take place before then; and since the Prime Minister isn't Harriet Jones, it must take place before Aliens of London. The only time the audios can take place is in 2005 and early 2006, before the Slitheen attack.

As has been pointed out on the corresponding talk page, not that many people seem to believe in aliens in Torchwood and TSJA either. Could someone more familiar with the Big Finish Audios and/or the whole UNIT dating issue rectify this? Thanks. --GracieLizzie 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that this paragraph has a bit too much original research. This sort of construction, putting stories together into a coherent timeline, is always a bit dicey unless it's been done by a third-party reliable source (such as Lance Parkin's AHistory). When you add in the complicating factor that the UNIT miniseries was written independently of the Doctor Who production team in Cardiff, it gets even more dodgy. Unless a citation can be provided for an outside source drawing conclusions about the time placement of the UNIT stories, I'd favour removing the paragraph altogether. (I don't recall offhand whether Parkin addresses ICIS or not; if he does, the paragraph could be recast as his interpretation and cited appropriately.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the article for The Mill fall under the scope of the Wikiproject?

I was going to go ahead and put {{Doctorwhoproject}} on the talk page of The Mill (post-production), but though I should check if they fall under the scope of the project first. --GracieLizzie 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd think so — they're as Doctor Who-related as, say, Murray Gold or Mat Irvine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Added it :) I was a little unsure, and when I noticed BBC Radiophonic Workshop doesn't seem to be part of the project either I was even more unsure. --GracieLizzie 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the Radiophonic Workshop wouldn't fit as well — surely Doctor Who is one of the things they're best known for. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought so too, I'll add it. --GracieLizzie 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

There doesn't seem to be a category for people - actors, production staff, etc. We should discuss these categories here and implement them asap. An obvious first addition would be something like "Doctor Who actors", perhaps under the new category "Doctor Who people"..? Maybe we could look at the Buffy and Star Trek cats for an example of structure.. I'm sure they probably have cats for the various people involved. --Mal 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There used to be many such categories, but they've all been deleted in the last few months. The first to go was the "Doctor Who actors" category, after this discussion. More recently, the categories which used to exist for crew members were deleted, and the last to go was the parent category "Doctor Who people". This all came about because the folks who habituate WP:CFD have decided that "overcategorization" is a problem, and one of the criteria they're using to delete categories is anything which categorizes people by projects they've worked on. So our categories for Doctor Who writers, composers, producers, script editors and so forth all had to go. If similar categories still exist for Star Trek and/or Buffy, they probably won't for long.
I'm not terribly happy about this, but it's a structural flaw in Wikipedia's deletion policies that the people who spend time thinking about what should be deleted tend to have more of a voice than those who spend more time working on actual articles. :/ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree with the action you say has been taken. I believe that categories are extremely useful for those wishing to use the encyclopedia for research (whether trivial, vocational or academical). I intend to re-create these categories and will object any future action to remove them, strenuously. --Mal 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't recreate categories that have been deleted via the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (CfD) process. Such recreated categories will be speedily deleted, in accordance with G4 in the criteria for speedy deletion. I opposed the deletion of these categories as well, but the general view at CfD was that they should be deleted, and we should respect that. If you wish to challenge the original deletion, you can do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Although discussions there tend to focus on errors of Wikipedia process and policy, if you can come up with a compelling argument that was not considered in the previous CfD discussions, you may be able to sway some people. Let us know if you do — I'd be willing to argue for these categories again, but I would not support their recreation out of process. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your getting back to me on this, and your support for .. shall we call 'due process'. You say there's a flaw in the system, and it is my intention to draw attention to this. I think much of Wikipedia suffers from an over-indulgence in the 'red tape' that serves us well for the most part. Perhaps we should be more inventive when it comes to creating (not re-creating) categories. From what I remember seeing, the categories had been nominated for deletion twice before. The first time the result was 'keep'.. the second time the result was 'no consensus' if I remember correctly. I'd like to know what has changed between the first nom and now, and I wouldn't mind seeing the debate for the first nom either. I'll leave it there for now. Cheers. :) --Mal 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

The number of IPs and very new users without userpages who post unsourced drivel on to the articles for Series 3 episodes is going up, and I'm getting tired of reverting it and feeling nervous about reproaching them (I mean, we wouldn't want to bite newbies, or anything, would we?). So, could someone please clarify the situation on reversion, page protection and warning perpetrators? Thanks very much.--Rambutan (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting nonsense is fine. You don't want to 3RR, but ideally you shouldn't have to, since there are lots of project-member eyes on these pages. (If three different people revert a change, it's not a violation of the 3RR.) A polite note on the IP's talk page is always a good idea — just explain why their addition isn't in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, or why it's a bad idea otherwise. If they continue, encourage them to discuss their proposed changes on the article's talk page. If they continue to add "unsourced drivel" after this, you can start with the boilerplate warning notices — it's not biting newbies if you've already made a good-faith effort to talk to them as human beings.
Page protection is a more serious step. My feeling is that it should generally be reserved for cases of persistent vandalism — real vandalism, not clueless newbies posting the latest rumour they heard on a forum somewhere. I know that it's tiresome to keep reverting "my mate sez that the ice warriors are in this epizode", but it's sort of the price we pay for working on pages for one of the most popular UK television series. If it's really intolerable, we could semiprotect some of the pages, but I'd rather hold off for a bit.
Unfortunately, I'm still busy in real life (terrible timing for Wikipedia's purposes!), but I'll try to keep a close eye on the Series 3 pages when I can, and join in the clean-up. I'm sure that other project members will do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Series list in template

I've changed the infobox for each episode to contain a list of all the episodes in that series. An example is at Rose. This is temporary while a consensus is made here; then we can either remove or expand the usage of this. Please comment on what you think of it. --Thelb4 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't like this, at all. Makes the infobox overly large, pushes the image down causing it to mess up formatting. Also duplicative of the LOE... Matthew 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
LOE? Come again?
Also, yes, the formatting of the page (the image) needs to be discussed. --Thelb4 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
LOE = List of Episodes. Matthew 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps remove the listing of series number further up in the infobox. I draw to attention a Simpsons episode, which is where I took the formatting from. They have a list of episodes as well, but it is not included in the infobox. --Thelb4 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. They have solved the formatting problem by putting the image to the left of the page on the Simpsons page that I linked to.
Images look silly on the left, I see no benefit to the duplicative text my self. Matthew 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I know! Just solved it! Insert a show/hide button and remove the first references to the series number. It only says about the series once and it stops the formatting from going wrong when the user has it on hide mode. --Thelb4 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the templates (it took a lot of hard work), and now I have implemented the hide/show feature. Have a look. --Thelb4 18:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
If there are no further objections, I will implement this across all of the series 1 pages as a further test.--Thelb4 20:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still don't very much like it, it should work properly expanded or not, also why list episodes in the infobox? We have List of Doctor Who serials.. Matthew 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see the call for this — someone interested in the new series might not want to have to scroll through 26 seasons of classic Who. I'm OK with the addition — my only problem is that the phrase "Series 1" is misaligned. Is there a way to make it properly centred horizontally in the infobox? (I assume that the "show" tag is what's messing that up.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Josiah, you realise your argument for is basically stating TOCs are useless :-\? Matthew 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No — I'm just saying that sometimes there may be circumstances when readers may wish to avoid clicking through a full list and TOC, and episodes within the same series may be such a case. George Washington contains an infobox with {{USPresidents}}, and also links to several {{Lists of Presidents of the United States}}. The former is just a navigational shortcut, so that readers don't have to go to List of Presidents of the United States. If List of Presidents of the United States had a TOC, that wouldn't be an argument for removing the template listing all Presidents. Similarly, someone looking at Rose (Doctor Who) might want to go to the page for "the one with the gas mask kid" without having to find the link to List of Doctor Who serials and scroll (or click the TOC) to Series 1. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I can see the argument. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Josiah, realign the Series 1 properly and it's fine by me. Smomo 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I just can't get the series 1 aligned centrally. It just won't go! If anyone is a bit more knowledgeable in the world of templates, some help would be useful! --Thelb4 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
On The Five Doctors, the huge infobox problem is fixed by moving the image further down the page. An alternative would to put the image after the infobox in the scripting, and it would move with it. --Thelb4 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment scales?

Has the idea of incorporating the assessment scale system which appears on other wikiprojects? I quiet like it myself, I was wonderin if others do or if anyone has any reservations. --GracieLizzie 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've considered this before, but kept putting off bringing it up because it always seems that we've got enough on the "to do" list as it is. It could be a useful addition. Of course, we should spend some time figuring out the criteria for assessment before we start slapping tags on talk pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh definitely, one of the things that puts me off assigning a quality to pages that have them is the fact I have no idea what the "quality criteria", or whatever, are. --GracieLizzie 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking it upon myself to modify the doctorwhoproject template accordingly. The process of assessment using the functionality of the Mathbot can aid a project in many ways - particularly in collating and categorising. It will take a couple of weeks in total probably, to smooth out the finer details, but the creation and modification of the template shouldn't impede the current progress of the project in any way. --Mal 05:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A further thought: spin-offs such as Torchwood could use the same template treated in a similar way as the Beatles template treats major individuals related to the group - Epstein, McCartney, Martin, Lennon, Starr and Harrison. --Mal 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the introduction of assessment scales, once the work is done, will be a great way of monitoring and accessing the success of the Project. One can then see the improvement from month to month and then act accordingly. LuciferMorgan 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Top articles would be Doctor Who, Dalek, Cyberman, Doctor (Doctor Who), Master (Doctor Who), Time Lord, and possibly List of Doctor Who serials. But I think we should wait a bit, though. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Serial/Episode Navigation Template

I just finished creating/debugging a Serial/Episode navigation template. I think it's needed because scrolling back to the top of the page to go click on the link to the next episode is a little too tiresome. This template is primarily for the bottom of a serial/episode page.

{{Template:Doctorwhoserialnav}}

Doctor Who Serial Navigation
Preceded by Serial Followed by
None WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 12 None

Check out An Unearthly Child for a preview. DonQuixote 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm opposed. Some serials already have multiple navboxes, and they're starting to look cluttered. Since this info is already present in the infobox, I don't think it's necessary. --Brian Olsen 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus at the TV project is these are redundant to infoboxes (I agree with this assertion), a few of these have now been deleted. Matthew 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean it to be about information but about navigation. I used Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton as a precedent. Anyway, discuss. DonQuixote 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree that it's redundant with the infobox, since the infobox already contains fields for the preceding and succeeding serials. It's pretty, but I don't think it helps the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that I am not a part of the project so I apologize for sticking my nose in, but, as I have been working to bring a more uniform look to the pages I thought that I would add a couple of comments. First, I would agree that they are redundant and add to the clutter at the bottom of some articles. The Five Doctors for instance already has five navboxes and this one might get lost among them. Second, if scrolling to the top is tiresome simply hit the 'Home' button on your keyboard and it takes you back to the top where clicking on the link to the next story is a breeze (believe me I have been doing that a lot over the last week). My work on the serials pages has brought up one other subject that I wanted to bring to the attention of you good members of the Wikiproject Doctor Who so (see below). MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Section titles for the various formats in which the serials have been released

As I have been going through the stories pages and have been trying to give them a more uniform look (mostly moving the 'In Print' section so that it is above the releases section - I had seen a few other editors doing this and it seemed to make sense as, with only a few exceptions, the books came out before the VHS etc releases) I found that there are several different names for the section headers covering the various formats in which the stories have been released.

As I thought about whether there was one title (ie Continuity or Production) that could be used on every article a few thoughts came up:

  1. My first thought was to name them all 'Broadcast and release' but the more I thought about this the more it seemed like the original air dates should be a part of this section, but that information is already in the opening paragraph on each page and in the infobox so there was no need to add it here unless the wikiproject wanted to move it here. None of this is actually an argument against using this title.
  2. Still start the section with the word 'Broadcast' (as many pages have interesting info about the original and repeat airings) and then use the name of the media that the story has been released on in the header - ie 'VHS', 'CD', 'DVD' and (occasionally) 'Cassette'. This also allows for adding DVD to the title as the stories come out in that format.
  3. Leave them as they are as it might not be that big of a deal.

While I would lean toward suggestion number two, I'm sure that you members of the project will have other ideas. In any event, this is all just food for thought. Should the project come to a decision on this matter I would be happy to offer my services as a wikignome to go through and change the titles to any form that is decided upon

One last word of thanks to all of you members of this Doctor Who project. I think that you do remarkable work and keep up the good job. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The main project page gives the order and titles for sections that we had agreed on - there weren't a whole lot of people involved in the discussion, though, so it's certainly fine to open it up again. It looks like it does say to put the "In print" section above the releases section, so you're quite right to do so! The title of the "Broadcast and releases" section has always bothered me - it looks like we did settle on your second option. The CD releases never occcured to me, but I think you're right that they should be included in that section. I've no problem with changing the title of that section - "Broadcast and (blank) releases" - depending on what's appropriate. It still feels consistent, even if technically it's not. And lastly - why not add your name to the list of Project members? You're already doing the work! --Brian Olsen 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite episode subpage proposal

Most of the Doctor Who articles are superb but lack in-line citations, with mentions of episodes regarding various facts making for clumsy prose. I suggest a sub-page where editors can simply cut and paste {{cite episode}} templates for each episode to use for citations to make life easier. So basically a version of the List of Doctor Who serials article with templates for editors to copy and paste from.

Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea — I had planned to create a guide to references, but never got the proverbial "round tuit". I don't think we need to vote on this — if you want to get started on this, just do it! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I started it, but someone who's better at table formats then me should add the {{[[cite episode]]}} format. I'll try. Alientraveller 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look - it's looking pretty good. I reformatted the airdates so that they'd show up properly - they need to be in YYYY-MM-DD format, without brackets. And I added the "began" and "ended" fields for the serials. What about adding a row beneath each serial, displaying how the citation will look on the page?
I've got a general question to toss out about this, though - the problem with the cite episode template for Who serials is that the name of the serial ends up in quotation marks, not italics. (You can force it to be in italics, but the quotation marks will still be there.) That's fine for most TV shows, but it only works for us if we're citing a particular episode - like "The Dead Planet" or (I suppose) "The Ribos Operation, Part One". I'm not too familiar with templates, but looking at the syntax for cite episode, I don't think it would be too difficult to copy the whole thing and remove the quotes, to make, say, "Cite serial". Would there be any problems with doing it, and how would I go about it? Is it as easy as making a new article page? --Brian Olsen 17:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A bit more info on my own question...I found the template sandbox, and played around with cite episode. I discovered that it would be very easy to make a new template that would italicize the serial names, rather than putting them in quotes. Is this worthwhile? Do we want a "cite serial" template? And if so, are there any other changes from the "cite episode" template that would be useful? --Brian Olsen 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There might be merit in a "cite serial" template, but before it's created we should probably be sure that we've settled the thorny problem of italicizing vs. quotation marks. I'm still of the view that we should continue to italicize serial names like The Dalek Invasion of Earth, but that we should switch to quotation marks for episodes, both classic and new (so "Day of Reckoning" and "Daleks in Manhattan"). This would be a change only for new series episodes (and Torchwood, which ended up following the Who lead instead of the general Wikipedia guidelines). In fact, I've been delaying my response to this question because I didn't really want to reopen that can of worms, but since we've got another FAR on our hands we should probably try to settle it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree that episode titles should be consistent with the MoS. The JPStalk to me 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote to support

  1. Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Thelb4 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. --GracieLizzie 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Definitely! It would be phenomenally handy!
  4. Support, with the caveat that voting is evil and unnecessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Sounds brilliant to me. Writing up those citations is always a bitch.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote to oppose

Discussion

TARDIS trademark

Our article on TARDIS says that the patent office has granted the TARDIS trademark to the BBC [2]. This link is unavailable at time of writing. They rejected a challenge from the Metropolitan Police, which has never used the word TARDIS but objected to the police box image. This suggests to me that the image itself is a trademark of the BBC.

On this basis. I suggest that it might be a good idea to stop using that trademark image on Wikipedia to signify the Doctor Who WikiProject, as in the use of Image:TARDIS1.png (which although a free image, employs the BBC trademark image) in Template:Doctorwhoproject. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (please see above) and the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image. Please read all the previous discussions above to stop us wasting more time on this issue. Thank you. Smomo 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please show me where on this page the use of BBC trademarks is discussed? --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it's here. Smomo 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any mention of the trademark. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Tony's right that we didn't address the trademark issue specifically. I thought I'd asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., but it looks like I didn't. What exactly is the policy on free images of trademarked designs? I don't want to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Template:StarTrek-stub uses an image of the (presumably) trademarked Enterprise design (well, one of them), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate uses Image:Stargate-color.png, which is free enough to be on Commons, but is also probably a trademarked design. I can find a lot of information about copyrights on Wikipedia, but little on trademarks and how they affect an image's suitability for use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
On the sixth page inside cover of every recent doctor who novel produced by BBC Books it says "'Doctor Who', 'TARDIS' and the Doctor Who logo are trademarks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under licence." I don't know if that helps, but it says the same inside all the books if you want a ref.--Wiggstar69 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That's referring to the TARDIS as a fictional bigger-on-the-inside time and space travelling machine, rather than specifically the police box exterior. Angmering 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Judoon

Someone keep an eye on this. There's this incredibly OR "Sontaran controversy" section where the poster has said they'll revert whomever deletes it unless they discus their reasons "in depth" in talk. Personally, I don't see any reason to discuss what is a clear violation of OR with no citations in depth, but there you go. Article could also use cleaning up.

Real life has been keeping me busy, so I've not been keeping as close an eye on things as I used to (and there was great rejoicing), and my threshold for Wikidrama has lowered considerably. Anyway, that article needs work, if not simply merger into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, since the Judoon have only appeared in one story so far. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger sounds like the best option to me. Percy Snoodle 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I hope people agree with me in that this page is getting too long, is it time for an Archive?--Wiggstar69 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to archive the page can do so — I've done it in the past, but I've been crazy busy in real life lately and haven't had as much time for Wikipedia as I'd like. The archive procedure I'd been using for this page is a bit archaic (it was the recommendation at WP:ARCHIVE at one point, but hasn't been for ages). If you don't want to bother with the index, I can do that when things are less insane for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes FAR

Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys - weren't me who nominated. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
What a silly nomination. Smomo 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with that view, but let's leave it at that. LuciferMorgan 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go at adding some inlines over the weekend. Angmering 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, as otherwise it'll likely be defeatured in a month considering it's lack of cites. LuciferMorgan 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy

Thought I should bring Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy to people's attention. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats interesting, I wanted it to be Doctor who but it looks like its neither of the shows, I wonder why they cant come to a decision.--Wiggstar69 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated this rather pathetic article for deletion. Angmering 11:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Spurious additions

Hi. You folks might like to keep an eye on the contribs of MrFijiax (talk · contribs), who's recently been inserting a swathe of apparently spurious additions into various Doctor Who-related articles and lists.--cjllw | TALK 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)