Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 16

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 25 September 2007 and 10 December 2007. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archive 16
Archive
Archives

Contents

Sarah jane adventures

What should the origonal broadcast dates be for The Sarah Jane Adventures. Should we use the BBC 1 dates, or should we note the CBBC channel dates? Currently List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories uses BBC 1, but Revenge of the Slitheen uses CBBC channel. We should keep the format the same across articles. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: see also the discussion here StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now someone's changed the Stores page to the CBBC format. We need to agree a format and use it. I think it should be the CBBC episodes, as that it when they were origonally broadcast. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the articles should be consistent. The accepted format is to use the first broadcast, period, even if that means listing CBBC one week and BBC1 the next week. (Similarly, if an episode airs earlier outside of the U.K., that becomes the "first broadcast" date for Wikipedia purposes.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If we use the BBC 1 dates, it would be incorrect, as they were not "origonally broadcast" on those dates - they were origonally broadcast a week earlier on the CBBC channel. StuartDD ( t • c ) 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Terrestrial over "sneak-peek" digital, IMO. We've tended to do that several times, especially when the Airdates of Lost page was still up. And by the way, and you should really know this Ckatz, the original airdate refers to first broadcast in country of origin (e.g. Heroes and Lost which got aired slightly earlier last season). Will (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"Terrestrial over "sneak-peek" digital" - if an episode is first broadcast on digital, then it is first broadcast on digital, and that date should be used. "We've tended to do that several times" - doesn't make it correct. StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Images Fair Use Rationale

I’ve been updating the fair use rationale on images in the Project Articles. I would like to

  1. Make sure what I’m doing is sufficient
  2. To see if there is a consensus on how these should look.

I’ve seen fair use rationales ranging from one-line entries basically saying I think this is usable because it follows the fair use criteria, to bulleted lists with eight lines detailing how the image falls under fair use (some of which don’t apply to the image in question).

This is an example of what I’ve been using

""==Fair use for Ace (Doctor Who)==

This image, Ace1.jpg, is from a book cover and the image copyrighted is held by the BBC, the book publisher or the artist, I futurehawk|talk 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use law because:

  1. The image is a low-resolution cropped image of a book cover;
  2. The image is being used for informational purposes about the character Ace and her reappearance in spin-off Doctor Who media, and shows how the characters appearance has changed;
  3. No more free alternative exists or can exist;
  4. The use of the image in this article will have no effect on the copyright holders commercial use of the image in question.""


Any constructive criticism is welcome.

Also I’m only updating fair use rationales many of the images do not reference sources and will eventually be deleted unless they are sourced. futurehawk|talk 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What you have there is pretty good for a rationale. In general, one-liners don't cut it, and eight lines is probably excessive (though no one would complain about it). Keep it to around that general template and you should be relatively fine. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That said I just found a good template at "Template:Non-free use rationale" so if anyone else wants to work on this I think this would be the best for consistency. I'm not planning to go back and change anything I've already done, but going forward this is what I will be using. Under source I'm only going to put "screen shot" or something similar, unless the source is stated already, but if someone starts to look up sources this should be updated. futurehawk|talk 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge note

I've placed a merge tag on Movellan to merge it to Destiny of the Daleks. Please comment. SolidPlaid 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an article listing Doctor Who races would be more appropriate for single appearance races like the Movellans. futurehawk|talk 17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There are: List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens List of Doctor Who villains List of Doctor Who robotsBlack Dalek 15:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in the discussion - List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens is probally best. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens is probally best. futurehawk|talk 19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.230.58 (talk)
The entry was missing from monsters and aliens, so I added it with a "main page" link. We need to trim the article before merging. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Help required

I put my article (currently at Paul Dale Smith up for GA status, and for my troubles have now got a massive warning put on it telling people not to trust it because I wrote it myself: can some unbiased editors take a look and see whether they would support removing the warning? The article is all sourced up and I don't think it's particularly self-agrandising, so I think the notice that was already on the talk page is sufficient. Thanks Sheriff Bernard 09:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In essence, it's strongly discouraged for editors to edit articles about themselves (or their business, or anything they have a vested interest in), even if they feel they can be impartial. Although I have no reason to believe you would purposely lie here, it's a simply fact of human nature that people will try to put themselves in a good light at least subconsciously (even for an uncontroversial figure such as yourself). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and I understand the concerns, which is why I'm trying to get other editors to look over what's been written and confirm that it's accurate and unbiased: if someone else wants to step in and keep the article as up-to-date and detailed as I've made it, then that's the ideal solution, but in the real world no-one else is as interested in spending a lot of time on this as I'm obviously going to be. The two alternatives left seem to be that I stop writing and wiki loses a good quality, up-to-date article or I keep writing it and the Who Project team double check what I'm doing to ensure I don't breach the spirit of the COI guidance. At the moment, wiki has a detailed and cited article that reader's are being warned not to trust, and that's not in the best interests of me or wiki (or the Who group). Sheriff Bernard 08:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is that Wikipedia isn't where you should be trying to keep an up-to-date bio or resume. You've got a homepage you can do that on, and it's already linked from the article here. Now, the long answer is that COI cases are always messy. Most of the rules are set up to prevent individuals or companies from removing negative information about themselves (or adding false positive information, etc.). The result is that honest attempts to simply improve an article about oneself also get caught in the COI crosshairs, so we often get left with articles that could be better if it weren't for this. It's for cases like these that we have the guideline Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, though I'm not sure if I should recommend invoking it here; people can get pretty touchy in COI cases.
If you're serious about wanting to improve this article, then one thing I might recommend is to start up a discussion at either WT:COI or WP:COIN. The editors around there will be a lot more knowledgable about the nuances of those rules than me, and you should get some broader feedback. Also, if I have some free time, I'll see if I can take a look at your article and make sure everything is alright there. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers: any and all help is much appreciated. Sheriff Bernard 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eye of the Gorgon

This has been added to Template:Sontaran Stories. I didn't see it, but reading the episode article, I'm not sure if it's correct. StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They were only mentioned. Like Daleks were only mentioned in "School Reunion". DonQuixote 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that certantly shouldn't be there. --Wiggstar69 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Free Images of Actors

Many of the Doctor Who related articles about actors from the series, (both regular cast and guests) use screen shots instead of free images. These images are in danger of being deleted, as it is reasonable that free images are available. For example the stub about Bernard Horsfall uses a screen shot that will be deleated 10-11-07 unless we can give a good reason why no free image is available. If anyone has pictures they have taken of people who have been involved in the production of Doctor Who, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and link them to related articales. futurehawk|talk 20:00, 04 October 2007 (UTC)

Lucie Miller

There is a tag on the above article asking for it to be re-written. Can someone who knows about her please update this. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Three big finish stories have been tagged for notability
Grand Theft Cosmos
The Skull of Sobek
Max Warp

Apparantly, episodes now have substantial real world information about the episodes. See also my question here. Does anyone know of any such sources for these? StuartDD contributions 10:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, these audios have only beeen annoucned, so they should go for now and return when we have plot/cast information.84.66.124.148 08:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Shall we speedy delete, or AFD? StuartDD contributions 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if notability is a good enough reason for speedy-ing in general. A PROD is generally the best option when you don't want to go through an AfD. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I've prodded them. Of course, if anyone objects to their deletion, they're welcome to remove the notice (though please replace the notability template unless you also go and establish it). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack track-listing

Hi, guys! Great news - there is now a proper, sourced track-list for the Soundtrack Volume II. If anyone can do the magic with the track-listing-table that is on the Soundtrack Volume I's page, that'd be great! I'll have a go myself, but I'm not good with advanced or even moderately advanced Wikicode! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done it, but there's a teeny weeny debate about OR going on there. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Good, but they are at the wrong titles. Since you reverted my moves, I'm bringing it here. First, the first album should be at Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack, without the "(Volume 1)" part. The 2nd soundtrack is fine where it is. The rest should be redirected to the first album; the disambig links are sufficient for finding the second album. There is absolutely no need for a disambiguation page. — Edokter • Talk • 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to sound threatening. I've replied in part on your talkpage, in part on the talkpage of the first volume. That's the place to have this discussion. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to have community input, then this is the place. Don't unilaterally close discussions like this. — Edokter • Talk • 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The article talkpage is the place for discussing possible move of the article. Obviously. See WP:TALK for more info. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move the soundtrack articles to their proper titles, unless there are other people objecting. This web of redirects is a true mess, and I'm just here to clean it up. — Edokter • Talk • 23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I see... so if only one other person disagrees with you you're right? What a load of rubbish - get some consensus. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion as this is the wrong place for it, and this is basically a replica of what's at Talk:Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack (Volume 1). All further discussion should take place there. There's no need for the duplicate discussion here, not least since this is the wrong place. Thanks. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this involves multiple pages, this is an appropriate place. It is inapropriate to arvitrarely close this discussion. But anyone is welcome to comment on Talk:Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack (Volume 1). — Edokter • Talk • 11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 Novels

Images for the next batch of novels have been released, but there're all in one image, which I don't know how to seperate.Black Dalek 09:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sontaran Stories

Some people have started putting "untitled 2008 episode" in the above template for the Tenth Doctor. While we do know that they will appear, I think we should leave this out until we actually have a title for it. What do othe people think? StuartDD contributions 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While this is here, someone keeps adding "Second doctor" for the two doctors, but I reverted because the "xth doctor" refers to the era. Is that correct, or should we have this? StuartDD contributions 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this template is under discussion, a question: why does it exist? I thought we just got rid of a large number of bulky templates, replacing them with categories. Thoughts? -Ckatzchatspy 09:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be taken out until we have a title as well. It's a navigational template, but there's nothing to navigate to. — Edokter • Talk • 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it. Now, about The Two doctors - should this be included for second doctor or not? StuartDD contributions 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably not, considering that it was a Sixth Doctor story where he meets his "younger" self. DonQuixote 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could someone enlighten me as to why we can't add the 2008 story? StuartDD put a hidden note into the template saying don't, and directed to the discussion here, but here all that's happened is his personal request that it doesn't go in. Could he tell us why not? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As Edoktor said, there's nothing to navigate to, so until the story actually airs and we have an article about it, there's no point in putting it in yet. DonQuixote 19:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My initial reasoning was: we don't have a title yet, so there's not musch point in having it. Since Edokter went beyond that (It's a navigational template, but there's nothing to navigate to) I used that. I realise that I should have waited, so sorry - but the point still stands. Why have something in a list of television stories when we don't have a title for it? StuartDD contributions 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"Probably not, considering that it was a Sixth Doctor story where he meets his "younger" self" - yes that was my reasoning. I can see the ideas behind the inclusion, but the "villain tv stories" templates are grouped by era ratehr than those present - For example, we don't put "Five Doctors" under cybermen stories for anyone except the Fifth Doctor. StuartDD contributions 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Planet of Evil

Anon poster, claims to be Ed Stradling, the producer of one of the DVD documentaries, insists on adding information about the special features on the DVD release of Planet of Evil. My take is that the existence of features, per se, are not notable, and are practically advertising. We don't list features on other movies with DVD releases, do we? Don't have the time nor the patience these days to police articles, as you may have noted over the last year or so, so... I leave this in your capable hands to decide if it's notable or not. See discussion on respective user talk pages (User talk:Khaosworks and User talk:86.111.223.190). Ta.--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The description of the features does read like an advertisement to me, and I don't think it's notable enough to be on the page, at least not as it was. I'm sure there's loads of info in the documentaries that could vastly improve the article, and the relevant special features would then be included in the references section. --Brian Olsen 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can tell him that. He's also added the same kind of info to City of Death. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely Planet of Evil must note of a "making of" documentary about it? The only thing that needs changing is the advertising-like tone (and yes, COI wrist-slap for Stradling). Personally I found the doc extremely useful, providing context for the article, which until recently wasn't much more than "what happened and who was in it". Totnesmartin 13:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

TARDIS-trans.png

I did some retouching on TARDIS-trans.png, retraced the transparency mask and corrected the gamma to brighten it up a bit, using the original image as the source. I hope it's to everyone's liking. — Edokter • Talk • 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff.--Wiggstar69 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

External links templates

Just FYI - I previously created a bunch of templates for use on episode articles, which duplicated the existing templates but used quotation marks instead of italics. I've gotten a little better at template syntax since then, so I've gone back to the original templates ({{OG}}, {{DWRG}}, etc.) and added the parameter "quotes". The templates default to italics, but if you add "quotes=y" (or "quotes=yes", or "quotes=1", doesn't matter what it's set to, just that it exists), they'll use quotation marks. I've also changed the template {{brief}} a bit. In addition to "quotes", I've added "torch" and "tsja". If you set either of those parameters to yes (or whatever), it'll use the link for those shows instead of for Doctor Who. Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures can also take the "quotes" parameter; Torchwood defaults to quotation marks automatically so it's not needed. I've changed all the affected pages; please let me know if you spot any bugs.--Brian Olsen 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Chang Lee

As of Wednesday, the article on the TV Movie character, Chang Lee, has been nominated for deletion. DrWho42 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been redirected. Tim! 08:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Error checking

I've made pages for Martha in the Mirror, The Many Hands and Snowglobe 7, could someone check for errors?Black Dalek 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate Doctor Who Magazine...

...because I'm not subscribed. It is also abused a lot by editors adding fancruft and complete misinformation preceded by "Doctor Who Magazine 388 says...". Of course, for those who are not subscribed, this information is completely unverifyable. So I tend to revert these edits asking for confirmation from other readers. All to often one comes along saying they can't find any reference. I know they have scoops, but (un)verifyability makes it hard to check.

So what is the best way dealing with supposed facts from DWM? I think if someone cites DWM, another reader has to confirm it on the article's talk page. Any thoughts? — Edokter • Talk • 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that reverting all edits which cite DWM until they're confirmed on the talk page would be going too far. I think that it's sufficient that we stay aware of the problem of people misattributing information to DWM, and those of us with DWM subscriptions (such as me) can try to double-check them on a regular basis. Of course, that's not to say that you can't question a dubious edit which is cited to DWM — if someone adds something saying "According to Doctor Who Magazine, Davros is returning in 2007 and will be played by Ian McKellen" it's reasonable to revert it and ask on the talk page. (Although between Derek Jacobi and Kylie Minogue, it's hard to make up a casting rumour that's completely improbable...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the latest DWM brought with it lots of edits to the serials page - some of which had to be corrected by a user who has it. I can't verify DWM material - so for all I know, the information could be made up and tagged with DWM. I think it should have to be verified by someone before it is included, though how we get IP's to follow this I don't know. StuartDD contributions 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I've got the latest issue, so I'll verify the citations to it on the serials page tomorrow. Is there any other page which has questionable citations to DWM? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you check to see if Astrid's surname is given in there as Peth? An IP is saying on Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) that it is...--OZOO (What?) 09:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. There's a run-down of confirmed casting in a sidebar on page 4, in the "Gallifrey Guardian" section, and it lists Kylie Minogue's role as "Astrid Peth". I'll drop by the VOTD page later and tidy up the reference, if it needs it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you also check this little factoid? — Edokter • Talk • 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That one's an error. There's another sidebar summarizing previous appearances of the Sontarans, which discusses the off-hand mention of Sontarans in the Sarah Jane Adventures story "Eye of the Gorgon". It ends by saying "so it would appear that they visited Earth again at some point during the mid-twentieth century...". That could be taken as a hint about the setting of next year's Sontaran story (presumably how the anon editor read it), but it could also be completely irrelevant to the upcoming story. It's certainly not definite enough to merit inclusion on the "list of serial" page.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone confirm this edit please. StuartDD contributions 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been confirmed as false. I think we need to come up with a systemn such that all DWM material has to be verified first. StuartDD contributions 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There's an obvious system for dealing with this kind of situation, as spearheaded by the guy who started this thread: come to the project talk page and ask. You can always revert in the short term, and then follow it up by posting here (and/or on the article talk page), where someone with a DWM subscription can check things for you. And if that's not enough, perhaps there ought to be a list of Wikipedians who are subscribed to the magazine kept hereabouts. --212.32.67.212 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The copy-and-paste job is also a dead give-away that's it's probably false. — Edokter • Talk • 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand why your not being subscribed to a magazine that reports facts and indicates clearly when things are only in the rumour or planning stages warrants you assumption that anyone who cites new facts when they receive it is lying? It will be discovered in due time if someone is lying, but to revert edits just because you haven't read the piece is not right. It would be like saying I didn't see that episode, so I'll revert all plot details because I'm not sure that those events happened... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bumping the episodes towards GA

Some episode articles are in bad condition, and given the way that people seem to be wrt episodes, we should make failsafes - while DW AfDs won't happen for a long time, there is always the eventuality. Hence we need to improve the quality.

Improving an article isn't really hard work - I did two over the weekend - "Doomsday (Doctor Who)" (at GAN) and "Invasion of the Bane". The rewrites I made are modelled slightly on the Simpsons season 8 GAs. It's a few hours work. So what should we do?

  • General - move from lists to prose.
  • Plot - reduce these vastly. Some have way too much detail in them. We should not, unless in very special circumstances, go above 12-15 words per minute. An example is Remembrance of the Daleks, which has 1100 words for 100 minutes.
  • Continuity - remove inconsequential notes and focus more upon the more important aspects - Remembrance's placement in Nov. 1963, "Doomsday" wrt Daleks
  • Production - create write-ups based on Shannon's site, and merge with our pre-existing points.
  • Outside references - remove stuff such as "there's a coke can behind the second Santa from the left", and focus upon important analogues - e.g. "Bane"'s references to Wormwood.

Doctor Who articles are among the most-seen articles, especially after episode airing (Blink was #24 several hours after airing for pageviews). We should thus focus on making them right. Even if ten people spent a weekend improving three or four articles, we could have 40 GAs soon enough. Will (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Love the work you do, Will, but I would like to address some points...
  1. Please don't squeeze the entire cast into the infobox. Only the most important main cast/guest stars should be up there, if any at all.
  2. If you're moving images to the left, don't forget to remove the 'right' tag as well (can't have both 'left' and 'right'), and please leave the 350px. (Please read the MoS section on the project page.)
— Edokter • Talk • 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
With #1, yes. I don't think that "Man #1" should be there, but Tallulah from Daleks in Manhattan should. Will (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Will is doing good work upgrading the articles but I also second Edoktors request that we do not move the entire cast list to the infobox. Please remember that these Dr Who wikipages are part of the television project and not the fiction one. Th DW project also has its own MoS and that should only be changed by consensus of the members of the project. Most importantly look at what it does to the page. It leave a whackingly ugly gap on the page. If this is what is required of a GA/FA then it isn't worth it. MarnetteD | Talk 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just looked at a few more pages and the cast list being jammed into the infobox is almost unreadable. The <br> command is not being used, thus, character and actor names are seperating across two or three lines and it is hard to make sense of what is what. Using the break command will only make the info box about three time longer. I really feel that cast lists should be put back into the text of the article unless a consensus of the project decides other wise. MarnetteD | Talk 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't stray too much from other episode articles, though. Doctor Who is the only show I can think of that doesn't have an infobox-integrated castlist. And six or seven lines isn't stretching by any rate. Will (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) I actually thought we had something unique. Personally, I hate infoboxes stuffed with cast listings; it simply doesn't fit, so I much prefer to have it in it's own section (just like the movies...). Also, the continuity lists should stay as lists. Prosing them makes them quite difficult to read. There is nothing wrong with listys persé. — Edokter • Talk • 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in general, with all of Will's initial points. Most of the plots are way too long, and there are a lot of inconsequential notes in the continuity sections (and the other sections too, to a lesser degree.) We should try to move away from bullets towards prose; however, that shouldn't be done just by deleting the bullets. If a section is a string of completely unconnected paragraphs, then I think having bullets makes them read better; to be rewritten into a prose style requires providing a broader context, an overall coherence within the section. (And as Edokter says, there's nothing inherently wrong with lists.) As for the cast list, I think it should stay in its own section, as it makes the infobox unwieldy. I don't think a separate cast section is violating any particular policy or guideline. --Brian Olsen 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted my cast changes, except on Doomsday, where I'm trying to figure out where it changed. Will (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed that about ten minutes after my post. By the way, sorry about my overly boldness regarding images and cast members. Will (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to page layout

How are these for changes to the episode pages?:

  • Synopsis merged into lead and is less of a teaser and more of a one-to-three sentence summary.
  • First screenshot merged into infobox. Second, third, etc, if existant, at relevant places.
  • All bulleted changes above.

Any other ideas would be appreciated, but all the same, we should not stray far from other episode pages. Will (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis - changing from teaser style is essential - we're not here to advertise, but to describe and explain.
I always prefer an infobox with a picture in it, but that's my personal taste.
Totnesmartin 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes to all, with the caveat that bulleted lists shouldn't be turned into prose just by removing the bullets, but by rewriting the section into a coherent whole. And putting the picture into the infobox will remove all the mucking about trying to get rid of the gaps. --Brian Olsen 17:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a good set of ideas. I've forgotten - you want to apply these to Torchwood episodes too don't you? I've been going through them after they air over here and have been trying to cut down on the fancruft and their plots are overly long also. Thanks for the hard work and the idea's Will. MarnetteD | Talk 20:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) To Brian: Yes, that's a given. For an example, see Invasion of the Bane or Doomsday (Doctor Who) for such continuity section.
To Marnette: should apply not only to Doctor Who and Torchwood, but also to The Sarah Jane Adventures, K9 (when it airs), and the singular "A Girl's Best Friend". Will (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Additional proposal: merging the "In print" section to "Broadcast" section and allowing reception, thus making it "Broadcast, reception and release". Will (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The "Broadcast" section should include reception, ratings and such - the style guide on the Project page already suggests that, although it hasn't been included in the section header (not that it shouldn't be, just that it hasn't been). And merging the "In print" section makes sense to me. Is there a better, simpler overall title that can be used, with "Broadcast", "Ratings", "Reception", "Releases", "In print" becoming sub-sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Olsen (talk • contribs) 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the four word header I proposed, "broadcast" covers broadcast and ratings (as they are part of broadcast - like "X million overnight, X.3 final"), "reception" covers reviews and such, and "release" covers release of the episode in all forms, be it DVD, novelisation, audio, or even reconstruction. Having all five as sections would be overkill as they'd just consist of one line each. Will (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
All good things, although I wouldn't really want to see the screenshot merged into the infobox.--Wiggstar69 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we losing the synopsis section? - the Doomsday article has merged it into the lead, and I've seen this done on one of the Sarah Jane articles as well. StuartDD contributions 19:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Most of them are teaser-ish. We're following the lead of several episode GAs and FAs, which have short, informative synopses in the lede. Will (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough, I have no objections to that. StuartDD contributions 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg form Voyage of the Damned

Input is requested at Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) regarding the removal of Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg from Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). Please participate in the discussion. — Edokter • Talk • 01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures merge proposal

Please see Talk:The Sarah Jane Adventures#Merge for a poll regarding the merging of all main characters bar SJS into the character list. Thanks, Will (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Doomsday (Doctor Who) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is now a Good Article

Editors are requested to help raise episode articles to this standard. Thanks, Will (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done to all involved in getting it to that standard, its very impressive.--Wiggstar69 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Two items for discussion

Now that Sceptre/Will and others are well under way in the cleanup of the article pages there are a couple of things that I wanted to bring up to see what the other members of the project felt should be done.

Companion listing in infobox

Quite some time ago an editor added a companion field to the info box without discussing it first. I would suggest removing this field based on the following.

  1. I am in favor of keeping the items in an infobox to a minimum so as not to clutter them up and now that the picture is being moved to the infobox they take up more of the page than ever before.
  2. Having them there reopens debates that will never be settled about who is a companion and when do they "officially" become one. As just one of many examples - Nyssa does not become a companion until Logopolis but she has been listed (though not currently) in this field in The Keeper of Traken infobox.
  3. Most importantly, the listing in the infobox is redundant. The companions are mentioned in the opening paragraph, in the plot summary and in the cast list.

Now just because this bugs me does not mean that I am insisting that this field be removed. I am only bringing this up so that the project can reach a consensus, but, as you can tell, I would vote for the removal of this field from the infobox.

The link for the Doctor in the cast list

I have come upon the fact that link that is piped in the cast list is being done in different ways. In the classic series pages the link is [[Doctor (Doctor Who)|Dr Who]] which goes to the overall article about the Doctor while in the new series the link is [[Tenth Doctor|The Doctor]], thus, taking the reader to the aritcle for the specific Doctor from the given story. For consistancies sake I feel that we should come to a consensus about which one of these we want listed and then make our decision a part of the MoS for our project. I would opt for the "Doctor (Doctor Who)" option as:

  1. The specific Doctor is already linked in the infobox and in the opening paragraph of most articles.
  2. The would be less work involved since only the new series would need editing changes.


Both of these are clerical sorts of things but I thought that this would be a good time to come to a decision about them so that we can make them part of the general cleanup that is going on. I look forward to your thoughts and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

I'd consider a companion to be a companion when they start travelling with the Doctor, if applicable, in the TARDIS (obviously, that doesn't apply to the UNIT 3rd Doctor stories. But I'm passing no judgement on the companion parameter. Also, link to Doctor (Doctor Who) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in the cast list, and the numbered Doctor in the infobox. Will (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with changing the Doctor links in the cast to the "Doctor (Doctor Who)" page - the infobox contains the link to the specific doctor involved. In regard to the companions, I would remove them from the box, as it is unneccesary when they are usually linked within the first few lines anyway. Aslo, as you said, is opens up the whole "what is a companion" debate. StuartDD contributions 19:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with changing the Doctor links in the cast to the "Doctor (Doctor Who)" page. However I like having the companions in the info box. It makes a nice quick reference. Also I always considered a companion to be a companion when they first appeared on screen, I understand I'm in the minority, but that's just my opinion. futurehawk|talk 5:52, Friday, Nov 16, 2007(UTC)

Soundtrack moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the pages in question, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The current titles look jarring and do not conform to several other sountrack articles - e.g. 300 (soundtrack) and V for Vendetta (soundtrack). It is unlikely, as well, that people will use the title and subtitle in speech and just refer to it as the "Doctor Who soundtrack". —Will (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose Those are the titles on the CD, and as such should be the title of the articles. Doctor Who Soundtrack already leads to a disambiguation page listing all Doctor Who soundtracks by their proper titles. The examples you cite are from movies, not series (and aren't actually named properly). I wouldn't mind redirects though. — Edokter • Talk • 15:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion:Instead of "Doctor Who (2006 soundtrack)", I would suggst "Doctor Who soundtrack (2006)" - or similar. I don't think the disambig part should contain "soundtrack" - that should be in the main part of the title. StuartDD contributions 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Episode titles

People seem to be forgetting this sometimes, so it may be worth putting here:

If you're using the name of a singular episode, like any new series or Torchwood episode, in an article, then it's typed like this: "The Impossible Planet".

If you're using the name of a serialized story, like any old series or SJA story, then it's typed like this: Revenge of the Slitheen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by It takes ages to find a free username (talk • contribs)

Articles for Deletion: Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast list section in episode articles

I noticed that the style guide on the project page was recently changed in regards to the cast list section in episode articles: "Taking the lead from, but not entirely copied from, the on-screen credits"; whereas before, the policy was to follow the on-screen credits exactly. When/where was this decided upon? I see that there's an ongoing discussion over at Talk:Time Crash, but I see that as only tangentially related, since I don't believe that had on-screen credits (just the actors' names). I, myself, am opposed to the change - I think that not following the on-screen credits whenever possible is a bad idea, as we'll constantly be futzing with them depending on how people believe each actor should be credited. Following the credits exactly removes any interpretation. We've got the "Cast notes" subsection for any required explanations (Anthony Ainley's anagrams, and such). Is there an actual consensus that this should change? --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to change our MoS regarding cast lists. Just a few days ago I began a discussion of what the link should be regarding the Doctor in a cast list in a thread just a few above this one but, as you say, that is only tangential to this subject. If we need to start a new section discussing changes to the MoS then lets do so. I to am opposed to changing it from our longstanding guideline of following the cast list as given onscreen. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I know there's a discussion on Talk:Time Crash. My point is that copypasta cast lists are technically copyright violations, and sometimes (the most obvious being the original broadcast version of "The Family of Blood") don't reflect the majority of the episode. Will (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In that case every Dr Who fansite is technically violating copyright. In any case we are not copypasting cast lists as we do not list them in the same order that they do at the end of each episode. Or at least in the case of the classic series, where multi-episode stories casts change from episode to episode, and we could easily change the new series order a bit. Once again the cast notes section is there to take care of any anomolies like "The Family of Blood" episode. In any event changes to our MoS should be discussed on this page before making changes in the articles.MarnetteD | Talk 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are then. Remember: we are an encyclopedia, and we must clarify, not cutpaste. While 98%, we need no changes, this is for the remaining 2%. Will (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Clarification is exactly what the cast notes do. I don't understand why we keep having to repeat that. Are you saying that wikipedia is going to be sued because of the way the cast lists read. Wikipedia's Doctor Who pages have received praise in the commentaries on DW DVD's from BBC employees so if legal action were going to occur it would have happened by now. Also, cast lists of the kind on the DW pages exist all over wikipedia. This includes film, television and play pages and I don't see them being questioned the way that these suddenly are. I am afraid that I will need verification from a lawyer before I accept that we are violating copyright in this situation. If you want to make a change to the MoS on the main DW project page (which you are doing) it really should be proposed on this page first and then a consensus of the members of the project should be reached. Please understand I am not doubting your Good Faith in trying to improve wikipedia in general and the Doctor Who pages in particular, in fact I know that you do a good job of this. I just feel that this rather minor dispute is gaining more importance than perhaps it should and yes I know that I am adding to that so my apologies if anything I have types has offended. MarnetteD | Talk 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent) I don't think we have to stick to the cast list so stricktly. Also, clarifying doesn't have to be in the Cast notes. I would put the following in the MoS: "Where multiple actors portray different incarnation of the Doctor (or any other character), they should be denoted as such." You can't gt more clear then that. (Oh, and I don't think copyright is an issue; lists aren't copyrightable.) — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the cast notes section should be for notes such as Trevor Laird being in Mindwarp, not for discrepancies against the credit list. I think it's best that if there's a major discrepancy between role and credits, it should be in the actual cast section (e.g. "Donna Noble - Catherine Tate (credited as 'The Bride'), or "John Smith / The Doctor - David Tennant (credited as the Doctor only)"). Will (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound dismissive, but I don't think the copyright issue is a real concern; and even if it is, whatever way we decide the vast majority of the credits will remain as they are on-screen, so if it is an issue, this doesn't solve it.
I guess the main sticking point for me is that listing the credits as they are on-screen seems to be working pretty well. When there's disagreement, we've got something concrete to point to; something that doesn't require interpretation on our part. If we don't use the on-screen credits, we'll be opening ourselves up to endless debates such as what's happening now with "Time Crash". The examples you give seem more awkward and difficult to understand than using the "Cast notes" section. "Donna Noble - Catherine Tate (credited as 'The Bride')" is less clear to me than "The Bride - Catherine Tate" with a note saying something like, "The Bride's name would be revealed as 'Donna Noble' in the following story, 'The Runaway Bride'." (Or something better written than that...)
Ultimately, not using the credits as they appear on-screen is, in a way, original research. We're claiming that these are the credits for the show, but if we change them, then they're not. They're our own interpretive clarification of the credits. --Brian Olsen (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, 98% of the time, we don't need to make any changes - it's just in the cases where there's a) discontinuity with the episode and the credits (e.g. "The Family of Blood"), and b) where the name's being changed for something such as spoiler reasons (old Master stories, Doomsday), that we need to explain. Will (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Copying a cast list isn't copyright violation since it's public information. Copyright has to do with intellectual property, which this isn't. DonQuixote (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time, the cast list will be the credits. In the rare cases of an actor playing two parts, or two playing one part, the actors should be credited by there major role, and a cast note should be given about there minor role.
In the case of The Keeper of Traken, Geoffrey Beevers should be "The master" (major role) with a note that he was credited as "melkur", and Anthony Ainley should be "Tremas" (major role) with a note that he took over the role as the Master at the end.
For Utopia, Derek Jacobi should be "Yana" (role for most of the episode), with a note that he was actually the Master, and John Simm should be The Master (his only role). StuartDD contributions 11:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oldest living cast member

I just added to Bernard Archard that he is the oldest living cast member (regular or guest star) - is that correct? PMA (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Short of massive research (remember a lot of actors in days gone by were somewhat evasive about their ages) it's impossible to determine. And unless it's sourced it's OR and trivial. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus, as people pass on and others age, this 'title' would shift and change, something very hard to keep track of on a point so obscure. Radagast (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot sections

Can we come up with a consistant style for the plot. Some Classic serials have lines to separate episode parts (see The Keeper of Traken), some just have a short run through of the whole plot (see The Daleks), some have a longer run through covering each episode without the lines (see Remembrance of the Daleks) and one even divides it by the origonal episode title (see The Dalek Invasion of Earth). We need to agree on a style for this. StuartDD contributions 11:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I like to see the episodes separated in some way and using individual episode titles for the early shows is a good idea, although I don’t think they need to be in as larger a font as in The Dalek Invasion of Earth. futurehawk|talk 17:15, Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007(UTC)
There has been discussion about shortening the plot sections since they've been criticised as being too long for encyclopaedia articles. DonQuixote (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The ones for some of the new episodes certainly are. Consider the 2,000 word "Plot" section for The Idiot's Lantern, which contains details like what characters were wearing at particular points, and the tones of voice in which characters make particular remarks. These have strayed from being plot summaries to give context to the article into descriptions from which you could practically refilm the episode. The sort of length and approach used for An Unearthly Child seems much more appropriate for an encyclopedic article. TSP (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:EPISODE, 10 words for each minute is all you need. I recently did this to The Sontaran Experiment and you do lose a whole lot of unnecessary detail, including short-lived characters, conversations etc. Concise wording will reduce the verbage too. I ditched a lot of "Styre makes his way to the monitor and contact with the marshal on his video monitor" type stuff. Idiot's Lantern is -what- 45-50 mins? I think 500 words should cover it. Not so sure about Curse of Fenric though... :) Totnesmartin (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thankyou! I was sure there would be a guideline on this somewhere, but I couldn't track it down. More specifically, it specified no more than 10 words for each minute - a maximum (because more than this is likely to constitute copyright violation), not an aim. Looking at things like Idiot's Lantern, I think that probably more than 3/4 of the content should be cut. The Sontaran Experiment is far, far better; it could probably go even shorter, to be more of a summary of the most important plot points rather than a blow-by-blow account. "The only purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information."
The summary for The Curse of Fenric, while outrageously long, is actually less of a violation than The Idiot's Lantern, as it's ~3,000 words for 100 minutes of content (3x the recommended maximum) versus ~2,000 words for 45 minutes (4x the recommended maximum). The rest of the Tennant ones I've looked at seem to be in a similar style. TSP (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"No more than ten" is a recommended limit. Doomsday runs about sixteen words per minute due to the complexity of the plot. Will (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's true that it's only a rough figure; it's not a rough figure for "more than this may be a bit much", though, it's a rough figure for "more than this may be a copyright violation". Doomsday is certainly harder to summarise than many; I think it would still be possible if it was written as more of a summary and less of a narrative, though. (It's currently more like 19 words/min.) TSP (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really complaining about the length - though that is an appropriate discussion - I was simply trying to get one way of listing the plot sections so that it is consistant from article to article. StuartDD contributions 10:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; but I think the question opens out into a more general question about how to approach these plot summaries.
I think I'd be inclined to say that breakdowns by episode are generally - in the case of serials which form one story - undesirable. To repeat my quote from WP:EPISODE, "The only purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information." For this purpose, it doesn't really matter which episode a given event happens in. If you're going to divide it, though, I think that using subheadings as in The Dalek Invasion of Earth is preferable to just using lines across, the meaning of which may be unclear to the reader, removing most of the possible benefits of dividing by episode. TSP (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notification

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mitchell. Tim! (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed - result was to "merge somewhere" - see link above for details. StuartDD contributions 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood reviews

Jhedman has added reviews to most of the Torchwood episode articles, from the blog The House Next Door. They seem well-written enough, and the Torchwood articles aren't exactly over-burdened with external links, but I thought I'd mention them here, and see what everybody thought. My main concern is that, from the username, I'd guess that she is the author of the reviews; they also appear to be her only contributions to Wikipedia. Should they stay or should they go? --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already deleted them before I read this message. The links are essentially a fan's blog that recounts the episodes (not really a review), so in that respect the links fail WP:EL. I've left a welcoming note to Jhedman. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I should have taken a closer look at them. --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who items is up for deletion

The discussion is here. [1] preceding unsigned comment was left by Nick mallory at 06:49, November 28, 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed, result to keep StuartDD contributions 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Small dispute on Template:Doctor Who

An unknown IP keeps putting Doctor who lists to the bottom of the above template, but I think it is better second in the table. What do others think? StuartDD contributions 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential edit war brewing I see. Protected for a week, while we can work it out. (personally, I think it's fine the way it is.) — Edokter • Talk • 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Doctor Who episodes in the Public Domain

Did you know that some episodes of Doctor Who are in the Public Domain because they have no Copyright? They are Season 1 - 23 November 1963 - 12 September 1964, Season 2 - 31 October 1964 - 24 July 1965, Season 3 - 11 September 1965 - 16 July 1966, Season 4 - 10 September 1966 - 1 July 1967, Season 5 - 2 September 1967 - 1 June 1968, Season 6 - 10 August 1968 - 21 June 1969, Season 7 - 3 January - 20 June 1970, Season 8 - 2 January - 19 June 1971 and Season 9 - 1 January - 13 May 1972 and then Copyright for all episodes from 20 May 1972 onwards. If you got images or screenshots from these episodes that would partly resolve the images problem for Doctor Who articles. Kathleen.wright5 07:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. See Copyright restorations under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Because all of these episodes were still copyright in the UK, their country of original publication, US copyright in them was restored by the URAA. Jheald (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Greeks Bearing Gifts (Torchwood)

To the members of the project please be aware that User:Nuttah is proposing to put this one episode up for WP:AFD. As I am not quite sure what third party sources can be used when recapping an episode of a TV series I thought that maybe some of you can give suggestions and/or be prepared to comment if/when it goes to AFD. Thanks for any help that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be of help. Will (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I've reviewed Nuttah's post. If he has concerns about notability, let's make a realistic effort to address those concerns, rather than pushing Nuttah towards an unnecessary AfD. Given the current climate toward anything television-related on Wikipedia, that is the best approach. --Ckatzchatspy 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Last Appearence

Please provide input on Talk:K-9 (Doctor Who), where Zythe and I seem to be in a deadlock, regarding K-9's last appearence in the infobox. He aslo removed the finnish= field form {{Doctorwhocharacter}}, which I reverted. I think he's a little too bold in removing "in-universe" information. — Edokter • Talk • 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of serials is a Featured List Candidate

Bit late with this spam, however, please leave comments here. Will (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Last appearances" field in infobox

I'm very much in favour of having this field removed. Unlike first appearances, last appearances are debatable and in many instances fans get all hissy with each other and seem to list the last five or six. For example, the Fifth Doctor lists both Adrozinai and Time Crash, K-9 seems to list every variant model's departure, and some editors on Sarah Jane like to list Hand of Fear, School Reunion, K-9 and The Lost Boy all as her last appearances. Where does it end? Most of these Doctor Who character articles fail Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) because they are written in a primarily in-universe style. A character's final televised appearance, among other details, should be written in the lead section of the article. The infobox field for it becomes messy and redundant.~ZytheTalk to me! 09:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: outpost Gallifrey changes

Outpost Gallifrey is now closed. The old pages are still there (just now) but the links will need changed. The intro page is here. navigate manually to the page and change the links. This will need to be done for every link. StuartDD contributions 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like some of the links still work - so see if the link works first. StuartDD contributions 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the links will stay as they are, as an archive, but the episode guide will no longer be updated. So we won't be adding OG links for new episodes anymore, sadly. --Brian Olsen 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the links on Doctor Who story chronology didn't work till I updated them, but some of the others did. StuartDD contributions 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

wikiquote page too long

I wasn't sure where to note this, so I'll put it here. The Tenth doctor page at wikiquote is too long (link here - 260 kilobytes). How should we split this up? - seasons seems most useful. StuartDD contributions 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who: A Celebration is up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: A Celebration your comments would be appriciated.--Wiggs 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Companion templates

Please see discussion here about whether stories with no companions should be listed on the companion templates. StuartDD contributions 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

merger proposal

Someone has suggested that Shalka Doctor be merged with Doctor (Doctor Who) - see discussion here StuartDD contributions 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Just wanted to point out that List of Doctor Who serials has been promoted to Featured List! Congratulations to everybody who's worked on it, and especially to Will for his work on the nomination! --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done, a lot of work has been put into that by a lot of people.--Wiggs (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Polly/Victoria 1969 Annual

I just edited these two respective pages, to remove the "Freedom by Fire" comic appearance from Polly's page, and to add it to Victoria's, I put in the edit summary that she was not named in the story but that the same illustration was used throughout to depict Victoria, I've now realised that this isn't strictly true, and that one caption reads 'Polly', however there is no mistaking that the same illustration is used consistently throughout the Annual as well as in the following comic to depict Victoria who is named numerous times in the annual, and despite the fact that Annual illustrations aren't always the most accurate, she is dark haired rather than blond. So I think that despite the one caption which is clearly a mistake/typo, that this should be recognised as an appearance of Victoria rather than Polly. And that the annual taken as a whole supports this. But I'm willing to leave it to others to decide and reverse my edit if deemed appropriate.Number36 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be that deciding either way would be original research. Perhaps include in both, with a footnote containing the explanation? --Brian Olsen (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents of Template:Doctorwhocompanions

Hi, I'm not saying to delete the novel and audio templates, but are they in the way on this larger template interrupting the flow of officially recognised television companions? Perhaps the novel and audio templates could be removed from this larger template and just appear on the relevant pages they link to, or perhaps put in a sub-category at the bottom of the larger template? Anyway, your thoughts... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that would concern me is that because of the issue of their being unclear canon, with no recognised official 'canon' as such, this, singling out non-televised companions, could perhaps be construed as taking a POV on the issue? You say 'officially recognised' in regards to the television companions, but on the other hand there's no official, erm, un-recognition of the non-televised companions, indeed in the case of something like the 8th Doctor radio stories, they've been broadcast by the BBC, and the others have been at least licenced by the BBC, so I can't see how they're less official in that sense.Number36 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no real objections to the novel/audio companion template - my reason for voting them to be separate was because there are a lot of them, and it made the templates too big. could it be poosible to have one template for televised companions, and another for the novel/audio companions. i.e - the template above contains television companions only, and a separate one be created for novels/audios to be placed into. StuartDD contributions 11:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can do away with this template alltogether. It is only used in two pages (one linking to the other) and a category, where it basically doesn't belong. — Edokter • Talk • 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)