Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 3

; Archives
	Archive index; 5 April 2005 – 26 May 2005; 21 May 2005 – 23 September 2005; 17 September 2005 – 27 December 2005; 31 December 2005 – 20 January 2006; 19 January 2006 – 27 February 2006; 27 February 2006 - 16 April 2006; 16 April 2006 – 9 July 2006; 6 July 2006 – 5 August 2006; 9 July 2006 – 24 October 2006; 23 October 2006 – 30 December 2006; 30 December 2006 – 30 January 2007; 31 January 2007 – 30 April 2007; 1 May 2007 - 15 June 2007; 16 June 2007 - 15 August 2007; 16 August 2007 - 26 September 2007; 25 September 2007 - 10 December 2007; 11 December 2007 - 31 January 2008; 1 February 2008 - 30 April 2008; 31 April 2008 - 16 July 2008; 17 July 2008 - December 2008;

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

→

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 17 September 2005 and 27 December 2005.

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

Collaboration?

Does anybody else think that it would give the whole Wikiproject some great motivation to have our own personal collaboration to try and get an article up to Featured Article standard? I think that History of Doctor Who or Doctor (Doctor Who) would be good candidates, mainly because the're very complete anyways :) Thoughts? Sean 02:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

TARDIS might be a good choice, it has been peer reviewed. --TimPope 09:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Historical characters in Doctor Who

Just found this last night. Needs some cleanup, but it's okay. Any thoughts? --Sean Jelly Baby? 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the formatting is really appropriate. I'd rather see something written in prose, instead of a massive list. – Seancdaug 17:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The Last

Anybody have any idea what this is supposed to be about? There is a Big Finish audio called The Last, but that is clearly not what this article is about! --TimPope 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hoax article - he also created The Next Life in the same way, gibbering about a new companion named Faust. I've speedy deleted both. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, just wanted a second opinion as it might have been a comic strip, short story or something else I may not have heard of ;-) --TimPope 17:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Fan films

Right now, the scope of Doctor Who spin-offs is limited to licensed material; originally, my intention in limiting it this way was so as to not have to deal with the numerous fan projects out there. That being said, there's an anon IP who has tried to insert the video projects of the Time Meddlers of Los Angeles into that article, which I reverted.

He has e-mailed me about this, pointing out that there are fan film sections for Star Trek and Star Wars. So I am asking for input on this - should we allow this info in as part of the spin-offs article, or somewhere else? Any thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is not to include this sort of stuff – I mean, where does it end? Can any eight year-old with his parents' camcorder and a silly hat add his own efforts to the piece? I'd be much more comfortable limiting the article to officially-licensed products only, but that's just my view. Angmering 11:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with featuring independent productions based upon Doctor Who concepts - things like the Auton films, the Sarah Jane Big Finish series, Benny Sommerfield, etc. I also wouldn't mind seeing something done on the fan-made Audio Visuals series that was a forerunner of Big Finish. But if we start including every fan made Doctor Who production I agree with Angmering the scope would get to wide. I can't speak for Star Wars or Star Trek. I personally wouldn't feature those fan productions at all, except for the fact some of the Trek ones like Hidden Frontier have been given legitimacy and notability because of the involvement of Roddenberry's estate and people like Walter Koenig. If someone managed to make a Doctor Who fan production and managed to get Tom Baker to reprise the Doctor, then let's talk. 23skidoo 13:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is Devious, which is set between The War Games and Spearhead from Space and features Jon Pertwee at the very end. Oh and me as a Dalek operator somewhere along the line! But as it's been in production for the best part of fifteen years now and still shows no sign of ever being finished, I still doubt it's worth even a passing mention. Angmering 15:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The section that the anon user added mentioned that John Levene appeared in one fan film as "Brigadier Benton", which isn't really much different from Walter Koenig appearing in Star Trek: New Voyages. My own feeling is that there could be a short sentence about fan films on Doctor Who spin-offs, with a link to a Doctor Who fan films page, which could go into a little detail. We should, however, generally keep references to fan films out; the only exceptions I can think of are short mentions of this Benton thingy on his page and John Levene's, and maybe a reference to that thing that Jonathan Blum did if anyone ever makes a page for him. —Josiah Rowe 15:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Unsure... it could grow wildly out of control, so I think it doesn't belong in the spin-offs article. On the other hand, an article about fan-made productions in general could have some potential — although any one fan video on its own it is not very notable, that's not to say the phenomenon as a whole should be ignored. --TimPope 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was refered to this page in order to discuss my proposal to list Dr. Who fan films/videos on this archive. Forgive me, but I really don't understand what is the problem in orderly listing this information here. These are ample Wikipedia quidelines for listing this information. I am not a person to let this matter to "grow wildly out of control". There is enough control in that. There is a a large lack of this Dr. Who fandom knowledge/works not being represented here. This sadens me. Dr. Who fan films is what got me interested in Dr Who matters back in the day and still interests me today. BTW & FYI--Walter Koenig is connected with the fan film project Star Trek- New Voyages, not the other one mentioned. I am the person who tried to supply my personal knowledge about several Dr Who fan films that were very popular and made some years ago. The videos I wish to list are not 'a eight year-old with his parents' camcorder and a silly hat'. These are a listing for three (1hr+ duration) sequential Dr. Who DNA Productions videos stories and two 40 minute Ryan K. Johnson produced FINISHED episodes along with the John Levene project. Arguably by some, the most notable is one fan film project that was guest starred by John (Anthony Blake) Levene. I wanted to list all these projects. I think that these fan video offerings consist of months of fan's hard work, fan money, fan group organization, and their contribution of each person's unique extraordinary talents. I think they deserve to be listed in Wikipedia. The Star Trek and Star Wars sections ALL already archive this fan films/video information. I do not think that these other genre sections have anything basicly different than the Dr. Who genre. Especially when I know that Dr Who fans have a longer and more honored record of making fan video tributes on the Internet. I could even say that the Dr Who's fan video tradition is older and longer than any other scifi genres mentioned. I don't think this information needs to be 'auditioned or reviewed' to be worthy of being listed here. Maybe the fact that you don't know or have little information on these fine exhisting fan film projects, is precisely the best reason to have this information listed here. It is so Dr Who fans become more knowledgable. Because, after all, this information seems to fit the mission statement of Wikipedia. Please think of these facts while considering archiving this video information. Thanks. 'Kay-9er'

Doctor Who audio releases

As another note, in case people aren't watching the articles - should Doctor Who audio productions and Doctor Who audio releases be merged, renamed, left alone, or what? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... Doctor Who audio productions is more of an essay on the subject, and Doctor Who audio releases is really a list. I think they're different enough that both can be kept, although I wonder if we should rename one of them to differentiate the two better. Since the Big Finish audios are listed at List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, perhaps Doctor Who audio releases could become List of Doctor Who audio releases plain and simple, with the note I just added pointing people to the Big Finish list? —Josiah Rowe 08:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Title sequence article?

I just reverted an anon editor's addition of comments about the changes of title sequences from the List of Doctor Who serials article. The additions weren't particularly encyclopedic (the user thought that there was a tradition to signal a Doctor's last season by a change of title sequence, which as far as I know was merely something that happened coincidentally in Seasons 11 and 18), but it got me thinking that maybe we ought to have an article about the Doctor Who title sequences. It could include information about the howlaround and slit-scan techniques. I'm not really savvy enough to have much to add to such an article, but I might be able to find the info in Doctor Who reference books I've got around the house. Do other folks think this would be a useful addition, or is it too crufty? —Josiah Rowe 00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds too crufty too me. However, as the title sequences (particularly the early work of Bernard Lodge) are often cited as innovative and unique, I think a subsection in the main Doctor Who article (or Doctor Who theme music?) might be good. Or perhaps in the various Doctor articles?--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think a subsection in Doctor Who would be better than the Doctor articles, 'cause the major changes in the title sequence don't always correspond with changes in Doctor. Any other opinions? —Josiah Rowe 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe rename the Doctor Who theme music to ??? and include information about the title sequence and the theme music. --TimPope 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on Dr Who? I already have TARDIS down as a candidate, it looks A-class to me. Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The three current featured articles are Doctor Who, Dalek and TARDIS. There may be some more candidates soon --TimPope 21:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hmmm. Well, Doctor Who and Dalek are featured (as is TARDIS). I like History of Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who), myself, but they've not yet been peer reviewed. Doctor Who theme music and Doctor Who missing episodes are decent too--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the suggestions. I have put these into our list here, please let me know if you disagree with my assessments. Please post any other suggestions here, if there are any other A or B-class articles. Thanks! Walkerma 22:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Doctor Who missing episodes is currebtly a FAC (See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes.--Sean Black | Talk 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah — I'd say that Doctor Who missing episodes is at least at A-level now, whether its FAC nomination is successful or not. There are also some other Doctor Who articles that are at least B-class in terms of quality (First Doctor, Second Doctor, etc.), but their content may be more crufty than what the Wikipedia 1.0 project wants. :) —Josiah Rowe 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Big Finish Cover Scans

First post in this "group". I have been updating the Big Finish audio stories and was wondering if we could add some CD cover scans for them? I have uploaded one already but it's to big but i could edit that at a later date. (called BFDW74_live34_big.jpg)

I haven't got the skills to add it to the article myself and was wondering if the wisdom of the people here could help me.

Chris razorkiller2004 17:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The syntax you need is [[Image:blah.jpg|right|thumb|"caption"]]. I took the liberty of adding the one you uploaded to the article so you can see what I did. --TimPope 17:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll add more when i have finished updating the stuff.

Chris razorkiller2004 17:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Clayton Hickman

How about adding information to the Clayton Hickman page? I have a feeling that with people into who they would like to know about the editor of DWM and designer of the BF covers.

Chris razorkiller2004 16:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new Doctorwhoproject template

I have created a page in the sandbox (Doctorwhoproject) which uses the Eccleston logo, probably better associated with the show now. Erm... what do you all think? Throup (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is part of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

It's a bit on the large side (which was my original concern and why I used the McGann logo). But that being said, it's actually pretty good. What do the others think? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Where would this go? looks good. chris razorkiller2004 17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I would propose it replaces the existing template {{Doctorwhoproject}} uses at the top of project talk pages.

This article is part of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Although, now I think about it, it could even go at the bottom of the pages themselves? Just a possibility... Throup (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, project notices always go on the talk pages, not on the articles themselves. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Throup's new project notice is indeed a pretty thing. The only argument for keeping the McGann logo is that the BBC seems to be using it for "classic" Doctor Who, and reserving the new logo for the current series. We want a logo that will cover both old and new. On the other hand, Doctor Who Magazine uses the new logo and still has "classic" Who coverage, which might be an argument for change. Really, I'm happy either way. —Josiah Rowe 00:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think, in all honesty, either logo represents both classic and modern Who. However, whereas the McGann logo is only used on "classic" products (DVD release, Big Finish, etc) the Eccleston logo is used on products which cover both like DWM (as Josiah suggests). Add to that the public exposure to the Eccleston logo and it leads me to the conclusion that the change would be good. But I'm bound to say that as I suggested it in the first place! Throup (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been a week now. Any last thoughts? Anyone? I'm prepared to update the template if no-one objects. Throup (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Reduce the width of the logo to 275px (400 is a little too large) and it'll be fine. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That's done, then. I must confess to having a habit of oversizing graphics--400px looked perfectly reasonable in 1280x1024 resolution. However, I admit it was a little large when I knock the settings down to 800x600! Throup (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

(David Banks)Excellent!(/David Banks) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List article titles

I've noticed that we don't have a lot of consistency in the titles of list articles (which we've got a fair number of). On the one hand, we have List of supporting characters in Doctor Who and List of robots in Doctor Who, as well as Historical characters in Doctor Who. On the other hand, there's List of Doctor Who monsters, List of minor Doctor Who villains and List of minor Doctor Who companions. Does it matter that the naming is inconsistent? Should we move members of the first group to List of Doctor Who supporting characters, List of Doctor Who robots and List of Doctor Who historical characters (the last of which sounds really bad)? Or should we move the second group to List of monsters in Doctor Who, etc.? Or are these best left where they are?

Is there a Wikipedia standard about this sort of thing? What do other WikiProjects do?—Josiah Rowe 00:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know - maybe you could check? You have a point, though. There'd be some cleanup to do after the moving, of course. Here's the mop. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If we do decide to move one group or the other, I will take care of the cleanup. (Nice mop!) But which way is better? Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions isn't terribly helpful, although I suppose the List of German language poets example favors having our lists at [[List of Doctor Who ___]]... —Josiah Rowe 01:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Rationally, it should be "List of Doctor Who ___", as the hierarchy will register as List > Doctor Who > subcategory. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a survey of other WikiProjects supports "List of Doctor Who___". Guess that's my work for the next day or two. :) —Josiah Rowe 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't take that long. I think I've moved all the links from main namespace articles, and all the redirects. (I also changed the Wikipedia:List of lists links, but the changes aren't showing up on the "What links here" list for some reason.) —Josiah Rowe 04:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just moved Doctor Who items to List of Doctor Who items, in accordance with this standard. —Josiah Rowe 07:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Story titles (again)

I realize that this has been discussed before, but I wondered if it should be addressed again now that the Project is a bit bigger. In the Doctor Who articles, our style has been to italicize story titles (e.g. City of Death and Aliens of London). I think that technically this is inconsistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says that "episodes of a television series" should be placed between quotation marks, not italicized. Now, I know that for stories in the classic series the question is muddied by the fact that nearly all of the story titles are actually multi-episode serials. The new series is a different matter, except insofar as we'd like to be consistent with old and new story titles (we don't want to say Spearhead from Space but "The Unquiet Dead"). But then, don't we want to be consistent with Wikipedia as a whole as well?

I know that changing every story mention would be a huge and tedious task — could a bot do it? — but I'm just wondering if we really want to swim against the WikiStyle current on this. —Josiah Rowe 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiStyle guidelines are simply that - guidelines. I think Doctor Who is in a unique enough situation that we should maintain consistent style within out own articles. Personally, I hew to the italicised story titles because that's how the major reference works: DWM, The Handbook, the Television Companion, the Discontinuity Guide, all do it. Outside of mainly Doctor Who related articles, we'll follow the crowd, but within our own little sphere, we should stick to what we have. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

From a personal viewpoint I think italics look much nicer. Plus it would end up being a tad confusing for the earlier serials where we have story titles *and* individual episode titles. So I say keep the italics. Angmering 07:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, italics are very good. The MoS is only a guideline, not policy.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) —Josiah Rowe 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Logos

While we are discussing logos, what can anyone tell me about the 'Death Comes to Time' logos? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, check Throup's logo page.) --JB Adder | Talk 10:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC) -- link fixed Throup (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What about them? There's one on the Death Comes to Time page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What is it you'd like to know? It was only used in the Death Comes to Time webcast which is why the story title is actually part of the logo. Throup (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah...now I feel like a bit of a fool by asking that question. --JB Adder | Talk 22:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Torchwood

See this: http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article320110.ece

Wow. I am literally gobsmacked! Radagast 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So do we change the stated aims of the group from being improving articles on Doctor Who to improving articles on Doctor Who and Torchwood? Angmering 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say the project's mandate is 'the Doctor Who universe', which automatically includes Torchwood and any other spinoffs, whether print, audio, or TV. Radagast 20:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Woah. I was completely convinced that it was a hoax. /*Jaw drops*/.--Sean Black ^Talk 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not Notable

Apparantley Doctor Who is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who). Should we take this seriously or not? --βjweþþ (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No, but it does seem like that anon's just trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Can anons even nominate article for deletion?--Sean Black ^Talk 20:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately so, and the latest AFC is a testament of that possibility. The question I have to ask is what made the anon think that the notability of Doctor Who was even questionable? --JB Adder | Talk 05:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Regeneration article?

A while back, there was a discussion here about whether we should continue to link "regeneration" to Doctor (Doctor Who)#Changing faces. I was just looking at regeneration, a disambiguation page, and realized that there's probably enough content there to begin a new page at Regeneration (Doctor Who). We could split it off, add some of the discussion from Time Lord#Physical characteristics and Doctor (Doctor Who)#Changing faces, then link the various mentions of regeneration to that page. If people think this is a good idea, I'll get started on it later today. —Josiah Rowe 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If regeneration wasn't an ability typical solely of the Time Lords, then an article would be worth it; however, because it is, I think creating an article for it wouldn't be worth it. --JB Adder | Talk 21:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

While I can see the usefulness of this (less typing when wikilinking for one), I feel a bit uncertain about it for some reason. It could very well be the daunting task of tracking down and relinking everything, so that's just laziness talking as usual. :) I can see how the article might be done, though, so I'm okay with it either way. Any other thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we all suffer from that link-fixing laziness, so I wouldn't worry about it! Probably why nobody's ever gotten around to moving Russell T. Davies to the more correct location without the dot. Anyway, as for a separate regeneration piece... personally I can't see the need, but then again as people may have picked up on by now my preference leans more towards Wikipedia covering the 'real' side of the show rather than the 'fictional' stuff. Angmering 23:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

...whereas I've got a weakness for fancruft! At least I recognize it as a weakness, which is why I bothered to ask here instead of being bold and writing Regeneration (Doctor Who) myself. :) —Josiah Rowe 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And on the other hand, I'm interested in both, and would love that all articles have a balance and mix either. We should form a band. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is an argument for or against making the article here, but there is a regeneration page at Wikicities:Tardis. Of course, if we made such a page here its style would be a bit different, but there's some useful content there that could be added here, if we decided to make the page.—Josiah Rowe 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Could we expand Time Lord to have a subsection strictly about regeneration?--Sean Black ^Talk 00:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty is that when we talk about regeneration most of the time, we are referring to a specific Time Lord's (i.e. the Doctor's) regeneration. Other times, we are talking about regeneration in general. The more I think about it, it is possible to unify the two by creating the article. We can also talk, like the Index File article, more detail about the real-world reasons for regeneration, and the development of the concept and the changes in name (from renewal, to change of face, to finally being called regeneration in Planet of the Spiders). Like I said, it's possible. Desirable, on the other hand... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. I want to say, "Sure! Great idea! Go for it!", but then I get the feeling that it'll be AFD'd and I'll actualy have to vote... *shudders*.--Sean Black ^Talk 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The AFD process is really that bad? I'm fortunate never to have been involved in it... —Josiah Rowe 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not really. I'd just hate to have to do it on an article related to Doctor Who.--Sean Black ^Talk 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

One other thought: if we don't make Regeneration (Doctor Who), then somebody probably ought to try to thin the extraneous content out of Regeneration, which probably has more detail than a disambiguation page ought to. —Josiah Rowe 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's easy fixed. There should really be only one short sentence. I'll do it now, if no-one else has already. --JB Adder | Talk 04:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Khaosworks has already taken care of it. —Josiah Rowe 04:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So I noticed. --JB Adder | Talk 04:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Doctor (Doctor Who) is very large and could do with a cull, so I am weakly in favour of the regeneration article… --TimPope 17:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's the closest the idea's going to get to a ringing endorsement, I suppose I'll pronounce it dead now. Ah, well. :^) —Josiah Rowe 05:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

List category

Should there be a Doctor Who list category including things like List of minor Doctor Who villains and List of Doctor Who planets? There seem to be quite a few Doctor Who lists. Thelb ⁴ 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the lists are categorized with the things they represent that have articles of their own E.g. the List of Doctor Who monsters is in Category:Doctor Who races (or should be, at any rate). I like it that way, myself.--Sean Black | Talk 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's suggesting that the lists be switched exclusively to their own category, but that an additional category be tagged on to them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I just don't think it's necessary. But, hey, what do I know?--Sean Black | Talk 22:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you're looking for a certain list, instead of having to go to a different subcategory and hope that it's there. To get to the List of minor Doctor Who villains, for example, you would have to work out to go to Category:Doctor Who characters, and if you were a newbie, you might think that the subcategory Category:Doctor Who villains was an article, therefore not finding the list. It would also be useful if you needed to quickly go to a different Doctor Who list (and that's what categories are all about, aren't they?). Thelb ⁴ 09:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me, though I'm not very up on the dangers (if any) of "category creep". —Josiah Rowe 00:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I change my mind. I like it.--Sean Black | Talk 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who lists created. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Found a few strays. —Josiah Rowe 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Friends of Doctor Who

Take a look at this one. Comments, please. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. The ostensible subject of the page might be worth a mention in Doctor Who in America. I vaguely remember this fan club — I think they appeared when the DWFCA (Doctor Who Fan Club of America) went belly-up. (Now that I think of it, DWFCA ought to be mentioned on Doctor Who in America too. Not that I know the story of what happened to that organization — it was huge in about 1985, then suddenly imploded.) At any rate, it seems odd to have a page for this short-lived US fan club and no page for, say, the Doctor Who Appreciation Society.

As for the article itself, it's an odd beast: most of the content is about the fan film series produced by this Southern California chapter, rather than the "Friends of Doctor Who" organization itself. I doubt the page would survive a deletion debate, but we might be able to find a home for some of the content. Perhaps what we need is a Doctor Who fandom article, about the history of Doctor Who fans and fan organizations. It could include a section on fan films, and some of this page's content could be moved there. —Josiah Rowe 05:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I like the concept of a fandom article. I've been considering it for some time, actually.--Sean Black | Talk 05:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not too sure about it actually. I've come across some articles like this in WP:AFD and the old WP:VfD, and I'll tell you now not all of them have been worth keeping. I fear this may go in the same direction, because, as some may see it, it is little more than advertising/recruitment-driving. --JB Adder | Talk 02:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the subject would necessarily lead to a deletion-worthy page (although I see how it could). The key would be to keep the focus on notable fan groups and movements, rather than listing every behind-the-sofa gathering. Trekkie isn't too bad, and I expect that an article on Doctor Who fandom would be better. :) —Josiah Rowe 03:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

For a start, an article like that could have a redirect from Whovian, which is doomed to be a stub forever as it stands. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that like a law of physics, or something? "When Doctor Who and Star Trek are compared, invariably Doctor Who will be better" :).--Sean Black | Talk 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say "yes", but of course there are exceptions. For example, except for two or three nights, in the 1990s new filmed Star Trek was better than new filmed Doctor Who. :D —Josiah Rowe 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As an example of a solid article on a fan subculture, take a look at Tolkien fandom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Template images

My attention has been drawn to this piece of policy at Wikipedia:Fair use.

The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.

The rationale behind this being that fair use images, on a particular page, are okay since they relate to that page and are fairly used to illustrate the subject. Templates, however, due to their blanket nature, are not. So we may have a problem with the use of the logo on the project template and the TARDIS on the stub template. Some may have already noticed a back and forth discussion between myself and Carnildo (talk · contribs) on Template:Doctorwho-stub about this.

Can we come up with a free image that can be safely used on both templates, yet at the same time is representative of Doctor Who? Anybody have a police box near them they can take a photograph of? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got one. It's not great, though. [1] Angmering 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I know there's one near Earl's Court tube station — I might be able to go there at some point. No promises when though! --TimPope 17:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Angmering's image might be better than a photo of the Earl's Court police box, since it looks more like the TARDIS. As I recall, the Earl's Court one has a slightly strange light on the top. Of course, the best thing would be to get a photo of one of the BBC props — any of you folks near Cardiff? :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now done some tests. Not very good tests, as they all look crap due to the second line carrying on under the picture with the big gap in between, but I don't know how to change that. Here they are, anyway: User:Angmering/Stubtests. Angmering 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the formating, that's easily fixed. :) I agree that the police box one is probably the best of the lot so far. Until something better comes along, I'm putting it in - we can always swap it out later if need be. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

We must be doing something right

Paul Cornell seems to think so, anyway: "I’m quite in awe of my Wikipedia entry. It’s both fair and incredibly accurate. I think I sign up to everything on that page. Or at least I do as of yesterday. It may have changed." Angmering 12:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I just put that quote on Talk:Paul Cornell. —Josiah Rowe 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If we're doing all right, any idea why Steve Roberts wants the RT article removed? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. I just read his comment on the forum like everyone else. I thought it was best to relay in the VFD though, whatever it's worth. Angmering 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Music in Doctor Who" article?

Wow... I signed up for this project a while back and promptly did nothing! In an effort to save face, I put forth the following pitch for an article titled "Music in Doctor Who":

The use of electronic music in Doctor Who had a significant impact on the development of electronic music in the UK from the 1960s forward. The BBC Radiophonic Workshop was a source of innovation in electronic music, and Doctor Who was one of its most well-known outlets. The theme was (reportedly? actually? possibly?) the first electronic theme tune in the history of (British?) television, and it remains a touchstone of British popular culture. The realization by Delia Derbyshire is still considered a landmark of pre-synthesizer electronic music.

So that's a very skeletal outline of the article I would envision, although I'm not sure I'm the one to write it. Is there someone on the project who is a musician, preferably one who has some good sources on the relevance of Who music to the wider world? Or should we just put up a link in the main article to Mark Ayres' website?

If this has already been proposed, I haven't seen it. Comments? Gwimpey 04:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We already have Doctor Who theme music, but I'm sure we could expand it to include th incidental music.--Sean|Bla ck 04:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Somehow, I managed to overlook the theme article when writing the above proposal. D'oh! How about a Dalek article, we don't have one of those, do we? ;) Gwimpey 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

DVD release articles

I'm wondering whether Doctor Who on Region 2 DVD and Doctor Who on Region 1 DVD should be merged, and the dates tabulated. There seems a vast amount of duplication with only a few Region 1-only releases (Key to Time). Also, when merged, we might want to add Region 4 Aus/NZ release dates as they are currently not catered for. --TimPope 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As with many things, it's historical, of course - when the articles were first created, there was a more significant gap between the two. I also did not have convenient release date data about the Region 4 releases, or else I would have included that as well. No objections to merging into Doctor Who DVD releases or something similar. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like the way that the tables were spaced irregularly between the various Doctors, so I did an alternate version at User:Josiah Rowe/Doctor Who DVD releases (temp). Do y'all think it's an improvement or not? The disadvantage is that you lose the table of contents for quick navigation to a specific Doctor's releases, but I think the page as a whole looks better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to keep the TOC while standarizing the spaces in the table?--Sean|Bla ck 05:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The only way I can think of is to specify the width of all the columns, which would take some fiddling but is doable. The disadvantage of that is that the table wouldn't automatically resize itself to the browser window, which might be a problem for some users. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I fiddled a bit with your table (didn't save), but coudn't get it to work. I'll work with the one that's in the article now.--Sean|Bla ck 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay: We either specify the width of every column, or we reformat it so it's not in a table at all. Look at strap-on dildo, where I reformatted everything into bullited headers. Not saying that's the way to go, but.. Oh, and WP:HTUT says that we shoudn't use table for lists. Thoughts?--Sean|Bla ck 06:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts? I think you just wanted us all to look at strap-on dildo, you naughty man. ;)

As for WP:HTUT, it does allow for using a table for lists with multiple pieces of information, such as "artist, album, year, and label". I think that "serial number, name, episodes, R1 release date and R2 release date" is similar to that. (Although I wonder if R2 oughtn't come before R1, but that's neither here nor there.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, hadn't noticed that. I'm not really sure what to do, really.--Sean|Bla ck 06:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

When the R4 dates are added it probably won't look as bad, you could always narrow your browser window to less than the thinnest table ;-) --TimPope 18:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging Mondas (Doctor Who)

I just came across Mondas (Doctor Who). I was about to merge what ever I could into List of Doctor Who planets, but there's a fair amount of detail there. What should we do?--Sean|Bla ck 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the detail and rewritten it to remove some near-fanon bits. I think there's enough to keep it as an article on its own. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Page Redesign

I, Mollsmolyneux, have redesigned the List of incomplete Doctor Who serials page. To view it please Click Here. Please leave any comments you have about the page on My Talk Page and tell me if you think I should put the page on. -- Mollsmolyneux 20:05, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Style guide

I strongly dispute the style guide being used by this WikiProject at the moment - specifically the use of the "notes" section to put what is often highly notable information. These are resembling episode guide entries more than encyclopedia entries - for an encyclopedia, notable facts should go in the lead, and details like cast credits, detailed synopses, and the like should follow that. A trivia section may be appropriate at the end, but, for example, on Dust Breeding it makes no sense to me not to have the two most important things about this audio - the return of the Master and the return of Caroline John - in the lead. Phil Sandifer 03:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, why are we not including which Doctor adventures feature in the leads? Phil Sandifer 03:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. While we try to do that typically (for instance, The Keeper of Traken mentions Anthony Ainley), I'll admit that the TV stories are better in that respect. Of course, I think that the audios shouldbe merged into lists, but hey... I'm not sure I understand your second question, could you explain?--Sean|Bla ck 04:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I was mostly noticing that a lot of the audio adventures don't mention which Doctor is in them until the plot summary. Some, in fact don't mention it until the cast section - Unregenerate! for example. Since the audios are non-chronological, it's not intuitive just from the season or order. Phil Sandifer 04:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then, you're right. The audio articles need a little work.--Sean|Bla ck 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said in Talk:Dust Breeding, perhaps the audios need an infobox to address this particular point about which Doctor is which. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution. I imagine it would only take a little tinkering with the source code of {{doctorwhobox}}, too.--Sean|Bla ck 04:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll whip something up this evening when I get home from work. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got something in my sandbox. Feel free to have at it.--Sean|Bla ck 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me — the only question I have is whether the "preceded by" and "followed by" boxes are necessary for the audios. I assume you're intending to indicate release order there, rather than fitting them into the overall narrative of the Doctor's life, which is beyond the scope of this project; but how relevant is it to an article on Jubilee that it was released between Bang-Bang-a-Boom! and Nekromanteia? (Incidentally, I was terribly surprised just now to discover that there was another Nekromanteia!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I didn't really consider that (and it probably won't assist with navigation more than say, a category would, now that I think of it). I'll get rid of it.--Sean|Bla ck 05:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User conduct RfC for TheDoctor10

Who wants to put it together? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to in theory, but RfCs often do little good, in which case it could escelate itself to arbcom, and since I'm an arbcom candidate, I'd rather not predjudice myself. Phil Sandifer 16:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Perfectly good reason, Phil, thanks for the offer. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to do it, but I also fear that it will do little good. And I really don't feel like this is an ArbCom issue. I wonder what options we have?--Sean|Bla ck 17:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

He's a relatively new account - has he done anything other than be trouble? Phil Sandifer 18:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sort of. At first his edits were just poor (not a big deal in and of itself), and then he started edit warring, personal attack, etc. Incidently, he got told off by an Arb (Mindspillage) early on. Now I think he's trying to be disruptive.--Sean|Bla ck 19:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What if I were to throw down a two day block for disruption then, and see where we go from there? Phil Sandifer 19:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object, and it would give us time to hash out a plan (or file the RfC, at least). Warn him first, though.--Sean|Bla ck 19:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen people permabanned for lesser behavior. I'm very concerned about his threat to use sockpuppets - which has not only been repeated on several userpages, but also was referenced in a few of his edit summari es. 23skidoo 19:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There's already a stern warning on his talk page about civility. I'll wait for him to fuck up again. :) Phil Sandifer 19:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A RfC may not do any good, but sadly RfCs are necessary if an ArbCom proceeding is possible in future. I have been reliably informed that many RfArs that have not gone to RfC first have been rejected. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, what a lot of constructive criticism for me to take on board. My edits are poor (I am tempted to delete everything I've contributed to WP after reading that, including the reversions of vandalism), and I'm trying to be disruptive. I am quite happy to file an RfC against myself, if anybody will take me up on the offer, but I don't need Snowspinner to start on me as well. I've never come accross him/her before, therefore he/she's nothing to do with the matter. If you want to ArbCom, feel free, if I get blocked I may (look this up in a dictionary, if you interpret it as a threat, I mean it in the sense that it would be physically possible to) sockpuppet. You say I am just out to make trouble - I'm not. If I started to, I really could. Don't tempt me.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC) PS: I loved Khaosworks calling me a petulant teenager. I thought the rest of you might want to use it in everyday conversation as much as I have over the past few days. It's a great way to insult people.

Again, you're taking this personally. It's not about you, it's about the process. You're disrupting the WikiProject's work. And Snowspinner can well file an RfC against you: he's (note his signature) helping us out, and for that I'm grateful. If you assume good faith, you'll find out he's a pretty cool guy (perhaps a bit hot tempered, and passionate in his beliefs, but a cool guy nontheless). We don't want want you to leave, we just want you to change your behaviour.--Sean|Bla ck 19:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"You say I am just out to make trouble - I'm not. If I started to, I really could. Don't tempt me." (Italics mine). How can anyone not interpret that and your continued finger-crossing about sockpuppets as a threat? 23skidoo 23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The "petulant teenager" thing seems like an accurate assessment of your recent behaviour to me. That's the kind of person who apologises with a hidden "not really" comment, like a child saying that their promise to behave didn't count because they had their fingers crossed behind their backs. If you behave like a grown up, you'll find people will treat you like one. btw if, as you have done, you say "if I don't get my way I may come back as a sockpuppet" that absolutely is a threat to use sockpuppets if people don't do what you say. Talk of "may" doesn't mean "will" is hiding behind mere semantics. PaulHammond 14:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not my fault if you don't speak English. I said that I am not out to cause trouble. I said that if I started to, I really could. Don't tempt me. That's a request. Not a threat.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a threat. You're pushing this too far, dude- just cut it out. It'll make everybody happy.--Sean|Bla ck 08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not a threat. Look it up in a dictionary.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Grammatically, it's not. In context, it is, by implication, just as it's a threat when a goon collecting protection money from a shopkeeper says, "Nice store you've got here. It'd be terrible if something happened to it." Grammatically, he's not threatening anything, but in context the clear meaning is, "pay me or I'll do damage to your store." From Threat: "The message may be vague and implicit in an attempt to avoid blame, including legal consequences, while still clear enough to serve its purpose." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As a note to everyone, I've blocked TheDoctor10 for 48 hours for disruption. Phil Sandifer 16:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually thought this might be a bit harsh, as he backed down this time around without the need for a block. But then, in his request to be unblocked, he goes and starts talking about a cabal again, so that kind of lost him any sympathy from me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

- It was a bad block on my part - I hadn't realized that the last block had gone through. Phil Sandifer 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The RFC is now listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheDoctor10 --TimPope 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Doctor-who

What do people think about this one? Good idea? Too large? Too complicated? Not necessary? Isn't this what categories are for? I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm just wondering. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Overall I quite like it, but I think what goes in it needs a bit of thought, for example random placement of Dalek and Doctor is a bit jarring. Still we can all work on it :) --TimPope 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Tim. It seems good, just needs a little bit of tweaking. In fact, I'll take a whack at it right now..--Sean|Bla ck 23:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing the non-main sites from the table, but doesn't that lose the information that was originally in the article before the table went in? Hmmm... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I do think there's something to be said for having Daleks in the template. Phil Sandifer 23:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

They can get to it via List of Doctor Who monsters, I think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I know... but the Daleks are still, especially to the non-fan population, something very much more than just another Doctor Who monster. And that fact makes me think they do deserve their own entry. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm looking at the purpose of the template: it was to replace the "See also" section, and set out links which may not be immediately obvious to the reader to look. The Daleks are very prominently mentioned in the main Doctor Who article itself, and linked in the text. I agree they are a major part of the programme, but at the same time I don't think we should lose sight of what the template is supposed to do - and also be wary of link creep. But that's just me: what do other people think? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I would consider List of minor Doctor Who villains to be pretty cuttable (And to need some work - Fenric really deserves more than minor villain status, having been responsible for, we later find out, most of seasons 25 and 26). List of Doctor Who robots is kind of an odd entry, as the show isn't nearly as associated with robots as it is with monsters. List of Doctor Who planets and List of Doctor Who items are, while a quality repository for permastubs, completely and utterly fanwank. List of minor Doctor Who companions is, again, probably not something that needs linking from every article. (And where is Frobisher?) Doctor Who in America is a great article, but an arbitrary inclusion - why not Doctor Who in Hong Kong. List of Doctor Who supporting characters should probably just be Doctor Who companions, and I question why we have Doctor Who audio releases and not anything about the novels. Which is to say, I think the list is pretty weird as is, actually. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Daleks are significant. Maybe you could have a 'featured articles' section of the template.

Frobisher ← ;) --TimPope 17:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but he seems tailor-made for being on a list of minor companions. :) My point really being that those are a weird set of lists, and a weird organization. I'll take a crack at it in a few. Phil Sandifer 18:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

That's really of course the function of a piece-meal, making it up as we go along, consensus editing rather than a Big Master Plan^tm</small]>, of course. :) Frobisher elevates himself from minor, IMO because he's appeared in three different formats. But there should be a link to him from that list, I agree. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I created the template in the first place. I'd just like to say that when I created it, I did it in a rush. I found all the Doctor Who-related feature articles, stuck them in and then found some main ones from the previous See also section of Doctor Who, and some from Category:Doctor Who. I appreciate all the efforts you're making to improve it. :<) Thelb ⁴ 21:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A larger reorganization

OK, I was going to attack the template, but I found out that there are some articles I think should go on there that are only there in list format. I'd like to think about reorganizing the Doctor Who coverage somewhat substantially so we have articles on a number of major subtopics. Among the things I think would be important articles.

Companions
Villains
A separate history article for each decade
Doctor Who in other media (Stage plays, audios, books)
A separate article for the new and old series (Since they are, on paper, different shows)

Can we make these WikiProject tasks? Phil Sandifer 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The existing History article has been pending for ages because we have not really discussed it despite putting it on the list. I have bolded it in the pending so hopefully we might think about it more. I think the main problem was that we couldn't think of a natural way of splitting, though by decade is a reasonable suggestion.

I am insterested by Companions and Villains as aticle suggestions as I'm not sure what you want to say but I guess you will elaborate more :)

For other media, we have Doctor Who audio productions, Doctor Who spin-offs, with seperate lines for Eighth Doctor Adventures etc. - I guess you are thinking of something more high level, that could be done by budding of the section of the spin-offs article, with perhaps merging in some of the detail from the individual book lines.

As for seperate article for new and old series... I'm not sure, but lets see what others have to say!

--TimPope 23:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in turn (and mostly good suggestions):

I've been thinking about doing a proper Companions article from some time, but I need to sit down and gather my research and not churn out yet another complete piece of fancruft. The History thing I raised from the start of the project but no one seemed interested in talking about it. Doctor Who spin-offs might be the other media you're talking about, or at least the start of what you're thinking about. Do elaborate.

As for splitting the two shows up, I am very hesitant to do so (and ultimately not in favour of it), because that is stepping right in the middle of a controversy between fans who say it's all one huge show (and I confess I am one of them) and those who don't. It's divisive, and arguably POV. What everyone can agree on (and RTD has stated unequivocally that it's a continuation) is that the show is an extension of the old series' continuity. Plus, one of the most significant parts of Doctor Who's appeal (to me, at least) is it's history and the fact it's lasted so long. The main article is not unweildy enough (unlike the History one) that is needs to divide the two pieces of information. There would probably be a lot of duplication as well, so last suggestion... not so much. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the split needs to be POV - and the main Doctor Who article is generating an oversize warning, so a split would probably be reasonable on those grounds. Or, at least, we should look for some way to schism those a bit. Phil Sandifer 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

But as I said, the one common point that everyone agrees on is that it's ultimately the same show. The split is on the production side only - writing-wise it's the same character, the same history behind him, and the other format changes are more radical but in the end no different from the various format changes that have happened over the decades. I think the divide is at least somewhat artificial. I would definitely support a split of the History article, but not on the main one. Perhaps that's where the distinction between the two, if any, should be made. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, as you probably know, the oversize warning is present on a lot of articles that aren't being split and don't need splitting - it's a suggestion, not an arbiter. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Doctor Who article is too big, some of the sections can be spun off, e.g. Missing episodes could be further condensed now there is the (featured) article about them. --TimPope 09:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

Some the images being used in Doctor Who articles are being deleted because of lack of source info. Here are three which I have identified:

Image:Mobrien.jpg

Image:Michaelcraze.jpg

Image:Wills1.jpg

As they are all uploaded by User:Scifiradioguy, it may just be his, but we probably best check as many as possible!

--TimPope 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What is a spoiler?

Wikipedians seem to find it challenging to know what should or shouldn't be considered a spoiler when it comes to a long-running TV series. Perhaps project members might find it interesting to contribute their insights on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Style guide issues

I'm indifferent about whether the notes at The Crusade should be divided or not, but I do think that a subdivision of the "Notes" section (as Proteus created at The Daleks' Master Plan) could be useful in many cases. In highly annotated articles like Rose (Doctor Who), the Notes section becomes unwieldy and difficult to navigate. We could perhaps provide an optional subdivision in the style guide for sections like "Script", "Production" and "Reception" (these are off the top of my head, and I think that if we do decide to subdivide articles further, we should determine the details collaboratively). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not completely against subdivision - I just think it should only be used where necessary, and I don't think The Crusades is unweildy enough to warrant it. Should we have a threshold for how big a Notes section should get before we start subdividing? Below 10 notes, say, doesn't make much sense to have to start splitting. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the number of notes that's the issue. The Five Doctors has plenty, but (when I last read it closely) each note covered one subtopic, or at most two. My point is that if there are three or more notes addressing the same subtopic, then we have an unwieldy situation, and those notes deserve to be written up as a subsection. Otherwise, we are forcing our data to fit our pattern, when the pattern was meant to be a sound way of containing our data (the cart before the horse). It would be better to let Wikipedias loose and add subsections where they feel necessary and then prune their efforts into more regimented categories (Scripting, Actors, etc.) --proteus71 23:43, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who novelists

Any reason to exclude Target novelists from this category? I added Ian Marter to it before reading the description, but can't think of any reason to exclude him otherwise. --TimPope 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, especially in light of Harry Sullivan's War. I can see an argument for excluding novelizations pure-and-simple, but Target did publish a few original Doctor Who novels, and there's no reason to exclude their authors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Cast lists

Is it worth considering adding cast sections in the classic series articles, at least for the more prominent guest stars? The Keeper of Traken was mentioned above and doesn't provide a link to Anthony Ainley, for example, even though he has a Wikipedia article. Because the cast list is external, there are no links to cast members who have their own pages.

(Apologies if this has been discussed before. Having briefly mentioned it to khaosworks, I thought it might be appropriate to raise it here.) Whouk (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned to Whouk that the original reason for only including an external link was because the cast lists for the classic series (unlike the new one) can get awfully long. A possible middle ground is to include only the main roles in the story. Any other opinions? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We should probably scout around and see what's most common in other television articles. (Feeling lazy right now, or I'd do it myself. :) ) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek and Babylon 5 list guests in the infobox. --TimPope 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Buffy project also list the guest stars in the episode's infobox - see Lessons (Buffy episode). -- --Whouk (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that Doctor Who's format is so different from other shows'. Most programmes have a large-ish regular cast and a few guests each episode. Doctor Who, for most of its existence, has had a small regular cast and a large number of guests in each story (who sort of become "regulars" for the story's duration). I'm not saying that we shouldn't include cast lists, just that we might want to look for another solution (otherwise the infoboxes could get very long). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.--Sean|Bla ck 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. I think the Who infoxboxes are present are fine. I'd rather see a Cast section, the same as has been done with the new series, but given the size of the old casts, perhaps a "Notable guest cast" would be better. This should include the main protagonists and any more minor characters played by notable actors (John Cleese in City of Death perhaps being the best example case, although this is in the Notes, which mention four guest actors in one note). The main problem might be different people having different views as to who's notable. --Whouk (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If either the character played has an article on wikipedia, or the actor has an article, that is a rough and ready guide --TimPope 21:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds OK, but it's much more likely that an actor in a minor role will have an article than a character that is significant to a particular story. Plucking an example out of the air... Wouldn't the role of Sharaz Jek in Androzani be notable within that article, even if neither the character or the actor had their own article? --Whouk (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Having added a cast section to 100,000 BC and The Daleks my instinct is to add all named characters, hence the large cast of the Daleks is reduced by not adding all the un-named Thals, and all the Dalek operators. The latter may need to be tweaked as there are some notable Dalek operators who probably are deserving of a mention :-) --TimPope 22:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Aaah, been a bit of a maverick. Noticed that cast lists were being added to old stories and so did some work on a number, especially Troughton and McCoy stories, which I've added complete casts to. Now I notice the above discussion - should I delete/edit my work? My New Year's resolution is to be more disciplined in contributing to Wikipedia. :-) --Litefoot 20.54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, some of it can get a bit long, particularly The War Games. Maybe see if you can cull it down a bit? Or do other people think we should leave it as is? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Invasion (Doctor Who)

I'm going to post two things here:

Can someone have a look at the abovementioned article, see if I've expanded it right?

Common external links

Do you think we should template the common plot links, like the BBC cast lists (I noticed that we were debating about this earlier) and the plot links to Outpost Gallifrey?

For clarification, both #The Invasion (Doctor Who) and #Common external links were started by Jb-adder --JB Adder | Talk 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we really need the plot links to OG - we're doing our own plot summaries anyway, so it wouldn't provide any more information. The question is whether or not the links are useful and provide information not otherwise available in the article itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, not a problem. --JB Adder | Talk 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for history format

I've created a sample of what we could have for a new format of the show's history here: User:DaveJB/History of Doctor Who 1963-1969. I've also created a sample infobox for navigating around the dates I've suggested for this new format (I'd be grateful if someone else could refine it, as I don't have much experience editing infoboxes). --DaveJB 14:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Can you write up the remaining pages as well, just so we can have a look at them as well? --JB Adder | Talk 22:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here you go!

User:DaveJB/History of Doctor Who 1970-1979

User:DaveJB/History of Doctor Who 1980-1989

User:DaveJB/History of Doctor Who 1990-2004

User:DaveJB/History of Doctor Who 2005-Present

--DaveJB 23:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks okay, but where'd the creation section go? Angmering 07:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It'd remain in the main History of Doctor Who article. Something like this;

User:DaveJB/History of Doctor Who

There'd be a small piece of text in each of the sections (which I don't have the time to write just yet, unfortunately) that links to a sub-article. --DaveJB 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I like them, however, should cast and crew be excluded from the 1990-2004 history block? --JB Adder | Talk 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I reckon that (1) The origins section should go in the section 1960-1969 (sic)/Origins (1962-1969),(2) The last two sections should be 1990-1999 and 2000-Present and (3) History of Doctor Who should become a hub with only brief summaries. Otherwise very good. --Jamdav86 10:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

More page move suggestions

In the spirit of the recent move from List of minor Doctor Who companions to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions, may I suggest moving List of Doctor Who monsters to the more politically correct List of Doctor Who races, inserting direct outs as before, and moving List of minor Doctor Who villains to List of Doctor Who villains. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I support all these moves- navigation will be improved. Specifically, "monsters" to "races"- imagine how many Zarbi that we're offending with the current title :).--Sean|Bla ck 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I see "monsters" has become "aliens". Are Silurians and Sea Devils treated as aliens, despite being from Earth? (I'm trying not to be pedantic about Autons, Haemovores, and Primords :-) --Whouk (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, pooh. Yeah, I thought of that once I started getting into it, but should we just let that slide? Alien doesn't necessarily mean "extraterrestrial", if we're really going to be pedantic... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as the lead for the list article explains that (to avoid anyone else saying the same thing), I don't think it's a massive problem. --Whouk (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I might have missed a few redirects. If anyone spots 'em, please fix 'em. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Monsters was better, after all most Doctor Who reference books call them monsters, as per Justin Richards' recent "Monsters and Villains" --TimPope 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal

Any chance someone could come up with a way of linking every artical to the main Doctor Who Portal. Just that it's time consuming to keep typing in Doctor Who and clicking on the portal link. Tenchi Muyo 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

That's an easily-solved problem, Tenchi. Since all the articles in the Doctor Who project have the WikiProject ticker on the talk page, we adapt the ticker to contain the portal link. --JB Adder | Talk 01:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do! It would be so useful! Thanks! Tenchi Muyo 11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo.

Future TV show template

There is a template, I notice, called {{Template:Future tvshow}}:

File:FamilyGuyLogoIconPreAir.png

This article or section contains information about a scheduled future television show(s).
It contains information of a speculative nature based on commercials for the show, its website and/ or other advance publicity. The content may change as the date of broadcast approaches and more information becomes available.

Would it be worth adding this to certain pages, for example The Christmas Invasion? --Whouk (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not Christmas Invasion since it airs in only a few days. I don't know if the template is intended for use on individual episodes. I could see it added to Torchwood however. I n fact I'll go ahead and do so if no one else has already. 23skidoo 12:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I created the following, if you're interested:

If you want to be geeky and completist about it, you can make boxes for the other two as well. --Jamdav86 13:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Although I think the promotional pictures have to go, we can only use those under fair use. Still nifty, though.--Sean|Bla ck 23:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

vworp
vworp

This user is a Whovian.

For what it's worth, I've been using the following on my user page. It doesn't have any pretty pictures, but I prefer to keep my userboxes free of all but the most simple images. Make of it what you will. – Seancdaug 17:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Doctor Who" or "The Doctor" in cast lists

Since we're in the process of adding the cast lists to classic series episodes, I've noticed that there's some inconsistency in whether the character is being listed as "The Doctor" or "Doctor Who" — that is, we're not being consistent with what the series used at the time of each story. (The series, of course, was not itself consistent.) I think we should list the character as he was credited at the time: that is, as "Doctor Who" up through Logopolis, as "the Doctor" from Castrovalva to Survival, and back to "Doctor Who" for the 2005 series on. Does anyone disagree? Want to make a case for being consistent one way or the other? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's fine to use whatever was in the credits. The inconsistency is mentioned in Doctor (Doctor Who), so it should be okay.--Sean|Bla ck 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, I think I've taken care of the First Doctor stories which have casts so far. I haven't been through all the serials systematically, though, so there may be some stragglers added in here and there which need to be amended. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As an ardent copy-and-paster, if I continue my advance through the 1st Doctor serials and onwards they will have "Doctor Who" instead of "the Doctor". ;) --TimPope 09:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, "The Christmas Invasion" credited David Tennant as "The Doctor". I wish that flippin' Time Lord would make up his mind about his name! Gwimpey 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to go with one or the other then go with "The Doctor", it's his actual name after all. Doctor Who is the name of the show, not the name of the main character. David Tennant was talking about it on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross. --Cooksey 10:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh. I think it's just how we deal with it in the cast credits; we'll do it according to how he was credited at the time, but within the articles, he's always "the Doctor", barring the odd slip-up like The War Machines or the running gag of "Doctor who?". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who actors

Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Actors by series and its sub-categories as this category is one of a number of categories nominated for deletion. --TimPope 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)