Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 14

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 16 June 2007 and 15 August 2007. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Archive 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• 30

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

Merge List of Doctor Who villains & List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens & List of Doctor Who robots

Please read all of my proposal and think about it before responding. Isn't this a bit redundant? There's even some characters who are repetatively mentioned on multiple pages. The problem is that many villians are also monsters or Robots. I'm not just suggesting a merge but a rename of the unbrella list. The monsters and robots should br listed alongside the villians group so that the Aliens can be listed on their own... we could re name the aliens one "Doctor Who aliens" and the other one cold become "Doctor Who villians, robots, and monstes" or better yet "Minor characters and alien races from Doctor Who". This would allow the unit list to stay sepreate since unit people have never been monsters, robots, or villians.--Dr who1975 05:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense. I never know which list to look at first. 'Minor characters' etc is probably a good title, especially as the major characters have their own pages. However, merging is likely to make the page too long. Perhaps someone can think of a more obvious split?Gwinva 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When you say "too long" what do you mean? What constitutes too long?--Dr who1975 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE for what constitutes too long. In summary: it used to be that 32 KB was too much; now better browsers allow larger pages to download/edit, so ideal length is not much more than 50 or 60 KB but anything over 100 KB should be broken up. At the moment Villians is 97 KB, and monsters is 68 KB. Gwinva 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The two are hardly synonymous. The monsters page should stay separate as it's a directory of races which works well.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your response is, in and of itself, an example of why this list does not work well. You changed your terminology from monsters to races in mid pararaph but those words mean two different things. If it's a directory of races.. it should be called races... and not contain individual monsters such as Aggedor.. .Aggedor is a monster but also a character and there is most definetly not an alien race named Aggador... also... if it's only races... why are characters such as Magnus Greel mentioned (he's not a monster or alien... aleternatively some people might think of him as a monster but he's also a villian which tells us that the monsters should become a part of the villians page). Please try to understand what I'm talking about. Having monsters grouped with races is inconsistent.--Dr who1975 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The monsters and aliens list should be reduced to Aliens and the villians list should be turned into a villians and monsters or minor characters list.--Dr who1975 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'know what List of Doctor Who robots should also be merged into the second list... Just because they're not categories doesn't mean they can't suffer from over catagorization.--Dr who1975 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my initial idea since the comments above were written. I still think the list should be combined... but in a very specific way so as to avoid over categorization but also repsect some of the other fan stuff buitl around these lists.--Dr who1975 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You only really need to move all individual villains to the villains or henchmen page, with a mention of their race at the monsters/aliens or robots or whatever it is if necessary. The {{main}} template works well for this. The system as it is is very comprehensive and works well, but I'd very much like for everyone to wait until other project members such as khaosworks (talk · contribs) and Tim! (talk · contribs) can give input as this is a very big change you are suggesting. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With size concerns having been raised on these pages in the past, merging them would seem absurd. A huge list including everything, from a description of the Editor to a description of the Argolin race to a description of Spider Robots, would be a completely incoherent jumble of Doctor Who trivia. Separate lists with clear themes allow this information to be presented logically and with the links in the Doctor Who template panel, these pages are easily accessible and one can switch from one to another by merely scrolling down to the bottom of a list and clicking a link. Admittedly, there is some overlap with say a robotic villain, but in most cases a link is placed on one list to the entry on the other resolving any issues arising from this. The names of the lists have worked for a long time and there are many redirects set up to address variations. Wolf of Fenric 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Been thinking about this. There is (inevitably) overlap between the Monsters, villains, robots and henchmen pages, which can lead to repetition (as people add something they think is missing, or don't know where to put it). The lists grow ever longer (with new characters invented being invented all the time), becoming more unwieldly, and filled with redirects and see also tags etc. How about a complete reorganisation according to the following lines: Create 'Doctor Who races'. Under each race, detail about planet (as appropriate) and stories they are in, with subheadings for notable villains, characters and henchmen of that race (androids affiliated with, or created by that race could be listed here, also.). So you get Cats followed by info about New Earth, and (subheading) Sisters of Plenitude, (subsubheading) Sister Jatt, Novice Hame. You suddenly see the whole race together, with all the main events happening. ('Human' would be fairly long, though!!). Such a page would be impossibly long, so broken up alpabetically, not by subcategories. So, you get Doctor Who races A-F, Doctor Who races G-M, etc, which are easily broken down or redistributed as Russel T Davies throws more creations our way. Would that work? Or, as Wolf of Fenric, says above, just leave it as it is!!Gwinva 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a whole new level of difficulty to the system is not there yet. Let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces :P ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see Gwinva is putting thought into it which is good. I don;t think you need an alien races list seperated by alphabet so much as a list of monsters, robots, and villians that is seprated alphabetically. The aliens list on it's own doesn;t seem too long. I wonder what the Star Trek peope do? I'll have to look.--Dr who1975 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the merge but if it goes ahead I believe we would have to reduce every entry to about one line per entry to prevent bloat. Maybe this would be a good idea. Tim! 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be what the Star Trek group did with List of Star Trek characters. I realize it's not as purty but maybe we should do that.--Dr who1975 00:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should redefine the articles to avoid a cross over. The list of monsters and aliens should be changed to a list of races and would include all the various species encountered in Doctor who (thals, Kaleds etc), with links to some groups (e.g sisters of Plentitude). This page would contain information about the race, or provide links to those that already have their own page(eg Daleks). The list of villians should be changed to specific individuals, or named charachters that apear in stories (the master, Davros, John Lumic, Dalek Sec etc), and not species at large (Sontarans, The cybermen etc) as they would already be mentioned in the races page. The Robots page should be merged between the two pages accordingly(Raston Warrior Robot into villans, Quarks into species etc), with those that do not fit into a species(e.g K9) going under "other" in the species page. Henchmen would qualify as villians under this, so would go into that page. The page names would be changed accordingly. - StuartDD 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whelp... Zythe tried to subvetr discussion by removing the links... I have put them back so that we can discuss it more. Mind you... very few people have disagreed with the merger idea.--Dr who1975 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought. Monsters, Vllians, Robots, and Unit personel become categories so only notable caracters get pages (why not give Aggador and Scalioni their own pages... other TV show have them) and all the rest on the lists are merged into one list of minor characters... similar to the star trek page. Alien races is given it's own page (and is named as such). This would really simplify things and avoid duplication of entries (such as a character who is both a villian and a robot).--Dr who1975 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been ages with no conclusion, can we remove the tags now? In a normal XfD, this would have been "closed" by now. If they became categories, they would certainly be deleted. Category police are strict. More subcategories of "Doctor Who characters" would also make the grouping useless in coming up with a large composite. Merging villains with monsters would also cause confusion i.e. Chantho is not evil, nor are many other aliens. Usually, the distinction between race (i.e. Toclafane) and villain (i.e. the Beast) is very clear. This is an unnecessary merger which would confuse matters, overcrowd already very long pages, cause a massive backlog of redirects as well as serve no immediate function - "if it's not broken, don't fix it". Drwho1975 seems to be the only real pusher for this change.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's no immediate problem, however it seems inevitable that there will be a problem sooner or later as the lists are forced to get longer. However, in that case, I'd recommend simply cutting down on detail first, particularly where that detail is already found in the articles for the applicable episodes. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how there's no real objection.. I will move forward with something in the next few days.--Dr who1975 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed objection, and the matter is far from settled. Please don't go ahead with something quite yet. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not twist the system. There is plenty of objection. In dispute cases you need overwhelming majority consensus to merge/delete. Look at the WP:CFD/WP:AFD system. You need consensus to delete or merge or rename otherwise it is left as it was. The only problem with these articles is length which a merger would only exacerbate. There's only one proponent for a merger, whose argument doesn't make a lot of sense so I'll remove the tags.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I was trying to twist the system I would've accepted your removal of the links a few weeks back and said... fine... if discussion is over it looks like more people are for the merge... I have had some better objections since I overuled you and kept the link open. Who's trying to twist the system here... I haven't done anything rash... on fact... I've been discussing everything.

Here's what I propose to do... I want to experiment with solutions on pages under my user ID... this way... I can show everybody what the final product would look like and we can debate the pros and cons of such a change. I will let you all know when I have a link ready.--Dr who1975 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, you don't get to "overule" anyone on Wikipedia. Things are consensus-based, and there is no ultimate authority on any matter (even Jimbo Wales is subject to the foundation). Anyways, if you want to work on proposed pages in your user space, go right ahead. If you somehow manage to surprise everyone here, we may even agree to use them. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware nobody overules anyone else... please don't take my comments out of context.--Dr who1975 00:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please refrain from using terminology such as "overule." What you did was reverting it. This may seem like quibbling, but it seems to me that saying you "overuled" someone else is unnecessarily inflammatory. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this, it seems like the main problem is overlap between the pages. What I thought the pages to be were that the Monsters page was a list of races, the Robots page a list of types of robot (e.g Quarks and Spider Robots, but not individual villains), and the Villians page was to be a list of villainous individuals. It looks like some people have put types of robots as races (e.g Yeti and Robot Santas are, at the time of typing, on both the Monsters and Robot lists), so this should be changed. After that, the pages should be carefully monitored to make sure that there is no redundancy between the pages. Just an idea... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Robots is a silly article anyway. That's like having a "list of Doctor Who green aliens", it's just another type of monster and or alien. There's a lot of cyborg races in Doctor Who too. I don't think there would be any big objection to merging robots (which is relatively small) with monsters. I will maintain that a characters list like villains (which is very long, too) should not merge with monsters because it will just become a random jumble of Doctor Who stuff, and way way too long. Drwho 1975, you're the main/only person who wants to merge all three, would keeping them as two articles be a better compromise?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've mentioned this above, but how about merging them all (or some) into an aphabetical 'List of races' or 'List of aliens and villains', putting all those related together (ie. villains, henchmen and robots that have the same affiliations together). I've done a trial cut and paste for a 'C' page here. It's not comprehensive, and I've done no editing, so you can see how information is repeated from page to page (eg, Cats, which were listed on 'aliens', 'villains' and 'henchmen'). The merge wouldn't make pages too long: Do 'A-D', 'E-H' or whatever, which can in turn be split. It can be hard to know which page to put things on as it stands. eg. Are the Family of Blood villains or aliens? Also, what happens when the existing pages get too long? Anyway, a compromise idea, but merely a suggestion. While I think the current organisation lends itself to confusion and repetition, I don't feel strongly about how it's sorted. StuartDD's idea mentioned above is also very sensible. Simplest is often best. Gwinva 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think StuartDD's idea is the best I've seen here. A split of races and villains seems most logical, and leaves only a few borderline cases. Even in those, we can often put an appropriate entry on both lists; for instance, "Slitheen" in the Villains list and "Raxacoricofallapatorians" in the Races list. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally logical. Creating a whole bunch of A-Z articles seems ridiculously extensive to me and, well, mad.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth trying... let's see how it works out.--Dr who1975 05:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

i say leave it as it is otherwise the article will become too long.--Lerdthenerd 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Khaosworks

This probably isnt the right place but whatever happened to Khaosworks? I havent seen him around in a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.41.116 (talk • contribs)

I took a peek at his contributions page - he's around, editing Who articles as always. He just doesn't seem to be as vocal on the talk pages as he used to be, unfortunately. --Brian Olsen 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cr*p

Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to sound so rude, condescending or anything, but I'm actually going to agree with everyone on that page. You have kind of jumped the gun here. I strongly suggest you have a look around all the other television episode articles (not just Doctor Who's), and especially their edit histories, and check out what they did there. Yes, we are here to improve the Doctor Who articles, but this group can always do with more editors. Nurture the newbies, please; invite them here, and we'll (collectively) train them up. --JB Adder | Talk 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"_______" television stories templates

Over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Doctor_Who_templates we seem to be getting a little out of hand - what originally started as just templates for reasonable things, like Cybermen, Daleks, the Master, Regeneration stories and Gallifrey, have now spread into 'Peladon stories', 'Macra stories', 'Mara stories', 'Lady Cassandra stories', 'Guardian television stories', 'Davros stories', 'Cat People stories' and 'New Earth stories', the last two of which are identical anyway.

And could we start populating the item lists and main articles with the Doctorwhoitem template, which currently is I think only in use on Hand of Omega?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, they all seem to be the brainchildren of this Wolf of Fenric character. Take it up with him. You're right, though; it's getting ridiculous. It's not even just the clutter; it's also that they're poorly executed.

I guess we need some kind of guidelines here. One: how many significant appearances must something have before demanding its own infobox? I'd say any less than half a dozen is really pressing it. I'm not entirely convinced that the Sontarans, Slitheen, or Davros have appeared enough to require a special list -- however significant they might be. They're certainly at the lower limit, however. Two: keep them all to the same damned format. It just looks sloppy, having the varied widths all lumped together. Aderack 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think these templates should be limited to things with multiple appearances in the series (not spin-offs): Daleks, Cybermen, UNIT, the Master...maybe Davros. Articles where the text itself won't allow you to easily find all the other relevant articles...unlike, say, "New Earth stories." Does someone have the time and the know-how to list all these for deletion? They've already been rejected for speedy deletion. --Brian Olsen 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of them have now been listed at TfD. Check no more need listing and join the discussion. Gwinva 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Half Human controversy

There is currently an edit war taking place on Doctor (Doctor Who) about whether the infobox should list him as definitively a "Time Lord /Human Hybrid", as simply a Time Lord, or (as I would argue) Time Lord but possibly half human, with a note referring to the article's discussion of the half human reference. Is there a way the larger WP DW community can resolve this, or does it need to go to mediation? -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Utopia

I don't think that we really need Utopia (Doctor Who place). could someone put it up for deletion? I wish to remain anonaymous to avoid a flame war, and I don't know how. Thank you.

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New article

Disciples of Light was created this morning. Totnesmartin 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rename from TARDIS to Tardis

User:Sesshomaru has proposed that TARDIS be renamed Tardis as a speedy uncontroversial move not needing debate to establish consensus. See WP:RM. 70.51.8.233 07:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that it is called 'the TARDIS', not 'the Tardis'? You're setting a precedent to rename 'BBC' 'Bbc', 'UK' 'Uk', etc. etc. etc.

It's not quite like that. An acronym that's also a word is written as the word (eg Laser rather than LASER), while an acronym that's not yet a word, just a set of letters, is still uppercase (eg JPEG). Tardis started as an acronym but is now a word. However it's definitely not controversial, as this very argument demonstrates. Totnesmartin 19:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's manual of style indicates exceptions to using all capitals where acronyms have become ordinary lowercase words. "TARDIS" is so often used as a proper noun, it would be difficult to argue it's covered by that kind of exception (one would never write "tardis").

But it's a moot point now. Mark H Wilkinson 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it they say? If it's not broken... - NP Chilla 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

We nearly had a bikeshed moment there! Totnesmartin 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Edward Tudor-Pole

I'm just a dumb American so I had no where else to turn but to you guys for help. I have heard that Edward Tudor-Pole (who was never in Doctor Who... sorry) is related to the Tudor royal family. Obviously this is either an indirect relation (i.e. the Pole Family changed it's name to Tudor-Pole after some guy married a Tudor cousin) or the relation is through a bastard child. I can't find a citable source on this in google. Clearly, there seems to be a Tudor Pole family that is related to Henry VIII ( regardless of whether Ed is one of those Tudor-Poles or not) but I can't prove that either. Can anyone give me any help with this. Thanks.--Dr who1975 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI Doctor Who: Podshock prodded

FYI, Doctor Who: Podshock was WP:PRODed by someone. 132.205.44.5 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Had a look...main concern seems to be notability. Need a few more sources to establish notability.. Anything from DWM or even the BBC? Alternatively, it could be merged with Outpost Gallifrey, since that is its home. I've removed the prod since this is not uncontroversial, but it may still be listed for AfD. Gwinva 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

According to procedure, AfD must follow a contested prod, so watch the WP:AFD page for a while. Totnesmartin 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The user who first Prodded it has every right to change their mind after it's been contested, and so nothing obligates them to propose deletion of an article they no longer believe should be deleted. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

A number of "Doctor Who: Television stories" episodes have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 27#Doctor Who television stories. Laïka 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

yes. See a few sections above at "_______" television stories templates for discussion. (BTW how do you #link a "_______" ?) Gwinva 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DWM readers needed

Hi guys, I'm working on the Jack Harkness article (because I want to get it to GA) and I need to know a citation. Can anybody source this to a specific issue, segment etc.? {{cite journal}} format, if possible.

Executive Producer Russell T. Davies stated in Doctor Who Magazine that Jack was left behind because they wanted to explore the effects of the Doctor's regeneration (at the end of The Parting of Ways) on Rose, since Jack would have taken the regeneration "in his stride".

Thanks everyone! :D ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest Dr Who, last episodes of thrid series, says Dr left because he was afraid. Jack was a fixed point in time, something that a timelord was wary of, even afraid of. Even the TARDIS went to the end of the universe to shake Jack off. Only a thought, hope it helps.

"outside references" sections

Might I suggest that a tighter set of rules be implemented as to what is an outsisde reference and what is not? Many of these sections, especially on Torchwood eps, basically call anything that kind of fits some part of the ep an "outside reference". for example, Combat had "this is like Land of the Dead because people put zombies in cages and fight them", which is ridiculous, because at that point you might as well add in any MMA fighting-related thing, when in actuality, it may have nothing to do with the ep. Now I realize that the section is subjective, but maybe at least limit it to the obvious? MSJapan 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tighter set of rules is fine, though I notice Speed Air Man has removed the Outside references section on Last of the Time Lords completely several times, mentioning WP:TRIVIA in the edit summary. Thoughts?

[1] [2] [3] TransUtopian 13:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who & The Five Doctors- quotes or italics.

Firstly, sorry if this has come up before.

Should the title of the 1996 fim be put in quotes or italics. I know we use italics for serials and quotes for individual episodes, but which one for the film?

Same question about The Five Doctors. --OZOO (vote saxon) 09:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Films and TV movies always take italics, so certainly Doctor Who (1996 film). Personally, since it's feature length, and had a special release (ie. not part of regualar season programming schedule) I'd class it as a film (The Five Doctors). However, the page itself calls it an episode, which'll make it "The Five Doctors". What do others think? Gwinva 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd classify The Five Doctors as a film, but serials take the same format anyway. Given its length, I'd personally classify it as being a serial combined into one episode or somesuch. But whether it's a serial or movie, italics is proper. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Five Doctors was always planned for television (not theatrical release), and it was broadcast as multiple episodes at some point (at least in the US market), so it's definitely an italicized serial, but it has no basis to be called a film. MSJapan 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This was always going to be a tricky one under the quotes vs guidelines rules. As Infophile points out it is hard to classify it as a film as it wasn't called that at the time of its original airing (unlike the 96 TV film). But as Gwinva points it it was a feature length special release. One other argument (a weak one I will admit) for keeping it in italics is that it was cut up into a four part serial on some subsequent showings in the US. I am not sure whether this ever happened in the UK. At 90 minutes it is hard to classify it as a regular episode so it was a good idea to start this thread OZOO so that we can come to a consensus should any strict MoS wikipedians come along. I would vote to keep them both in italics. MarnetteD | Talk 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'v done a bit of work recently converting italics to quotes for the new series episodes. I left The Five Doctors alone as it was a feature-length episode and, as has been noted above, was subsequently sold as a serial to overseas markets. Wiki's MoS states that italics should generally be used for longer works. So I would say leave it as it is, but I'm happy to go with the consensus. Chris 42 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I say stick with the italics, because of it being feature-length, and it being broadcast in some markets as a serial. Either one of those rationales alone would be a little iffy, but I think with both it's justifiable. --Brian Olsen 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Five Doctors was also repeated in the UK in 1984 as a four episode version. I think the italics works - it's frankly more confusing all round to use quotes as it will jar heavily with the other stories. Timrollpickering 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New templates for episode articles

I brought this up before, and nobody seemed to have an opinion, so I went ahead and created some new templates for the episode articles. Most of the templates in the External links and Reviews sections automatically put the episode names in italics, which is fine for the old series but no longer fine for the new. I debated changing the existing templates so they wouldn't automatically italicize, but decided just making a second set of templates which put in quotes automatically would be simpler (since I'd only have to edit the articles for the new series, instead of for both the old and the new). So, for anyone who ever deals with these, the new templates are: Template:Brief ep, Template:Doctor Who RG ep, Template:OG ep, Template:OG review ep and Template:DWRG ep. They have the same names as the originals, except with "ep" for "episode" added in (aren't I clever?). I've already made the changes to the articles (up through "The Runaway Bride", which is the last one to use them). --Brian Olsen 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack and Torchwood

Hi,

Since the last episode of Doctor Who has let us know that Jack Harkness is The Face of Boe, wouldn't it be safe to assume that he will lead the Torchwood institute into the future? We have heard in the episode "The Satan Pit" that Torchwood still exists (I believe there are other references as well)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin.lemstra (talk • contribs)

You can't actually "assume" such a thing without published evidence. Original research isn't allowed here, otherwise every article would get clogged with people's pet theories and bright ideas. This is why there has to be a source for every statement. We don't know if Jack will lead Torchwood yet. And, please sign your posts so we feel like we're talking to someone :) Totnesmartin 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of the Doctor Who universe is a featured list candidate.

Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination page. Will ^(talk) 23:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible New Article For Doctor Who?

Now this is probably a stupid idea , but i think there should be page for paradoxes that have appeared in Doctor Who? After watching series 3 it is clear that a lot of events in peoples future bring about events in their own past. Blink is an example and the Jack/Boe paradox as well. I want to hear what you think of this and is it a good idea? 86.156.46.50 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, that would probably end up just being a bunch of original research, and thus not allowable in Wikipedia. If some notable source publishes an article on paradoxes in the series, then it might be alright. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive

This page is very long, and needs to be archived. Totnesmartin 17:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dodo Chaplet article

In the Other appearances section, there's an ambiguous statement which says: She eventually becomes involved with a journalist who was investigating the truth behind UNIT and is ultimately murdered by the Master. So is Dodo murdered, or the Journalist? If anybody has the book (Who Killed Kennedy), could they clear this up? Totnesmartin 11:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorted: Dodo was murdered by someone operating under the Master's influence. Mark H Wilkinson 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Totnesmartin 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of homosexuality in Doctor Who

I'm new to editing Doctor Who articles on here - and I'd like to ask this question here before developing a new article on Treatment of homosexuality in Doctor Who. Namely, is it ok to start such an article?

The topic looks interesting. Ok, there's nothing in the classic series, as far as I recall, but with the new series things change. Yes, some homosexuals write and produce Doctor Who, the new series is so popular amongst homosexuals that a big screen showed Last of the Time Lords at the London Gay Pride event, and we have our first bisexual and homosexual characters, including the "hero", Capt Jack. However, at the same time, The Empty Child told of two homosexual paedophiles ("there was a man...") that preyed on Nancy's charges, and Rose did not take too easily to Jack's bisexuality. In Gridlock, we saw that in five billion years' time, there is homosexual "marriage", but Brannigan, being an old fashioned cat, can't accept that the Cassidies are a lesbian couple, despite knowing them for many years, instead referring to them as being "sisters".

A new article would develop points such as these, which I find somewhat interesting. I realise we'd have to be careful that the tone remained serious as some might try to hijack it to make inappropriate comments, but that doesn't stop potentially sensitive articles being written elsewhere on Wikipedia. So is it ok to start it? The Tribe of Gum 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From the sounds of it, it is in opposition to WP:OR, so my instinct is that you can't create it unless you find sources. --Jamdav86 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely that depends how it is written. Nothing in my second paragraph is original research. None of it is opinion. If you disagree, please let me know why, so that I can understand where you're coming from. Ok, we'd have to stop people adding original research, but that's not what I intend to write. The Tribe of Gum 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The BBC's Dr Who episode guide mentions homosexual references in The Happiness Patrol ("The story deals with...gay pride (there's entrapment over cottaging, the TARDIS is painted pink, and the victim of the fondant surprise is every inch the proud gay man, wearing, as he does, a pink triangle)").[4] Totnesmartin 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's debated - others have argued it's not a pink triangle and that the story just have a camp design. Just because the BBC website uses text from the Discontinuity Guide doesn't mean it endorses it in any way (and in any case this is an after the event interpretation). There have been interviews with authors, most notably Ian Briggs for The Curse of Fenric, who have said that particular characters were meant to be gay but it couldn't be said (although the novelisation does) and metaphors were used (e.g. Dr. Judson, based on Alan Turing, becomes crippled physically in place of being crippled by society/law). Yes there are some bits in the new series but this is really best for an analysis rather than an encyclopedic entry. There's also scope on pieces on race and gender but again it would be either a lot of OR or else citing many fanzines which are not good sources for verifying. Timrollpickering 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It more belongs on your LiveJournal than Wikipedia, to be honest. It's also incredibly likely to be hijacked by the same people in IMDb who think RTD is dragging the show into some sort of sexual politics (nonsense) and criticise "gay kisses in a childrens' show" (nonsense again, paraphrasing an IMDb user). Honestly, there's not enough academic research on the topic, I think. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is enough stuff to cite to start an article, however there may well be enough for a section. Another thing that springs to mind is Judson in The Curse of Fenric being based on Alan Turing and how, as it wasn't appropriate at the time, Turing's struggle with homosexuality became Judson's struggle with his physical disability which can be cited by the DVD interview with serial writer Ian Briggs. GracieLizzie 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You could try gay science fiction, which has nothing about Dr Who, and needs a bit of a tidy. And makes me want to go and read Odd John. Totnesmartin 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There are many more sexual references in the new Who than in the old. Jacks flirting as a bisexual rather than homosexual, even than- interspecies - cho refernces. There are even indirect references to oral sex, where a disembodied head on a paving stone - last victim of the absorbalof - was discussed. If you want to discuss the wider aspects of any sexuality in the Who universe it may complicate matters, as we might as well open the door to a wall to wall discussion of any and all social aspects. Open a personal discussion rather than a project discussion and invite people to join. A Who Project that covers every aspect of modern society would be cumbersome. Best Wishes and no prejudice intended.

Images

There are missing cover images for Wooden Heart (Doctor Who) and Sting of the Zygons. I also think that Hex (Doctor Who) should a scan from the covr of the settling, as with the other audio only companions. Maybe we should offically apoint some to be the one to upload new covers? What does everyone think?(Black Dalek 11:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)).

Also the cover for the Doctor Who story Slipback is missing so can someone do something about it. VitasV 24/7/2007

• Make sure such images go through the proper hoops with regards to image rationale, or your talk page will be flooded by bots saying they're gonna be deleted. 23skidoo 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Change to style guide

In Doctor Who and Torchwood episode (and, prospectively; 'The Sarah Jane Adventures') articles, the 'Refrences to other stories' section' should be changed to 'Refrences to previous stories'. This is because many stories (especially in the new series) now link into events in future (according to our chronology) stories and the story-arcs especially so. Technically all this should go into 'Refrences to other stories'. To avoid the nessecity to go through every previous article and check if there are any new refrences that need to go in (a huge job, considering that fact that we have had 53 epiodes of Whoniverse drama, and with 3 new series coming up (Torchwood series 2, Doctor Who series 4 and The Sarah Jane Adventures series 1) this job will only get longer. Changing the title of the section will remove this need, and if a story-arc relating to future episdodes is particually relevant to a story then a new section can be added under continuity under the title 'Story-arcs in this episode' or similar. -13djb13

Companion actors

Just happened to notice that some companion actor articles have our wikiproject tag and some don't. Is there a consensus here that they are "all in or "all out"? And if not, should there be one? Totnesmartin 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

They should all be in... if the tag is misisng from someones page...you should add it.--Dr who1975 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I will. Totnesmartin 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, and came across some surprising absences - Lis Sladen, Sophie Aldred, Noel Clarke... also added Anthony Ainley, Roger Delgado, Michael Wisher, Michael Sheard, John Levene and Richard Franklin. Totnesmartin 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox "Ongoing" - or not?

Why do we have a bit of a revert war going on about the "Ongoing" status of characters announced for Christmas and/or the 2008 series? I don't recall seeing any discussion or consensus on this, just lots of edits back and forth. I personally think it's silly to keep it out if the character is announced for a future appearance, as in such a case it isn't at all speculative. Either way, though, it would be good to have everyone on the same page (this one!) instead of endlessly putting it in and taking it out! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What page are we talking about? --Edokter (Talk) 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Two Doctors edits

What are the fail guidelines!!! I have been trying tyo edit aN ENTRY INT HE TWO DOCTORS BASED ON ACTUALour ammeneded entires and total LY seeing the edisode. Only to be met by an on line mafia and total avoidance of my sand box project.

I am seriously considering contacting an administrator to assess the project based on four entries changed without good reasonj and a lack of input into the sandbox. If I am in error please tell me the reason for such and I will gladly bow to experienced opinion. However, I have tried the pathwways described for entries and found them to nbe frustrating. If I am at fault mie culpe, otherwise explain to me why valid experiential entries are ingnored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakesseven (talk • contribs).

Because they're wrong. "Two Doctors" is widely available on video and DVD, and what you claim simply doesn't happen. "Carnival of Monsters" I don't remember offhand, but the point is not to rationalize what happens. Please sign your posts with four tildes. MSJapan 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I taped the episode while it was still showing on PBS, long before it came out on DVD, and have watched it numerous times. Nothing like that ever happened. Maybe you're confusing it with the Sontaran getting killed with coronic acid, but that wasn't digestive. Where did you see it? If in England, perhaps there was a different version than what aired in America. But I seriously doubt there was that radical a difference. Shockeye did say that Oscar's constant pestering about getting paid had affected his digestion. Perhaps that's part of the mix-up? But Oscar was definitely stabbed in the version I have. -Ebyabe 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I will bow to superior evidence for now, but I was sure the English original showing had the death of Oscar via fatal Androgum digestive juices. Thanks for the replies, my faith in the project is restored.

I possess the DVD, and it features death by stab. Hence, unless my DVD has accidentally been given an unused print of the episode, it's death by stab.

Master length

Right, the article "Master (Doctor Who)" is way way way way too long. Anyone familiar with the old series willing to lend a hand towards contracting it lots?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a chunk out of it. The problem is the amount of plot summary, thugh I don't think it's necessarily too long. I'll work on it more tomorrow. MSJapan 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened the television Master stuff by 4½ kb, but I've left the novels and audioplays alone as I'm not familiar with them. There was also a canonicity warning, which I incorporated into the text. Wikipedia articles don't have to stick to canonicity, but it's useful to mention it. The article is now fairly close to the 32k guideline. Totnesmartin 10:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Can someone please upload the audio cover for the story Slipback.
• Can the person that keeps deleteing the code for The Movie please stop it. The production code is TVM. It says so on the official Doctor Who website. Just go to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/tvmovie/detail.shtm or just go to the official website, then click on classic series, then episode guide, then on Eighth Doctor, then on The Movie, then on In Detail and it will prove I'm right.

These two items were posted on the main page for the project by User:VitasV by mistake. I have moved them here for discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the course of months, User:Victory93 keeps reinserting the TVM production code for the film and 171a for the Children in Need Special, and they seem to be his only contributions. Several editors keep reverting. I understand these codes cannot be sourced online, but some insight might help so we don't have to edit-war over it. --Edokter (Talk) 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:DWspinoff

Template:DWspinoff has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul McGann photo nominated for IfD

Image:Eighth Doctor Publicity.jpg, used on Paul McGann has been nominated for deletion (here).

If it is to be kept, we need to establish (i) its importance to the article per WP:NFCC #8; and (ii) the source of the image, and terms under which it has been released.

For (i) it is probably sufficient that this is one of the 3 roles McGann is best remembered for - and the one with by far the most distinctive "look". (Though there is a cadre of image cops who will do their best to object to any non-free content they think they might be able to get deleted, on any grounds - so further arguments to the images's significance and general acceptability could be helpful).

For (ii) we need to establish that publication on wikipedia is not notably interfering with anybody else's commercial use. If the BBC are commercially licensing the pic to particular publications/websites on a semi-exclusive basis, this is not good, because our use here could be seen as making the picture less exclusive and so less valuable. On the other hand, if this is a standard publicity shot, released by the BBC to the media for re-use at zero cost, that would be very helpful, because use here would not be doing any commercial damage at all.

So if anybody has any precise source info on this image - ie if we can definitively document who originally released it, and on what terms, that would be useful.

We have at most 5 days, if we want to keep the image here. Jheald 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added my comment. --Edokter (Talk) 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Could the Dalek in the episode 'Dalek' be Dalek Caan?

At the end of Evolution of the Daleks, Dalek Caan activated it's emergency temporal shift. This basically randomly sends it to a time and place. Is it possible that it could have sent Caan back to the point where it met the previous Doctor? Consider: it had the same color and voice as Caan (though this isn't absolute proof; most Daleks look and sound the same) and it didn't recognize the Doctor (since it only knew the Doctor's current (or in this situation next) incarnation.

Admittedly, this is just wishful thinking, but it does make for a nice tidy circle. I just started thinking about it at the end of Evolution, when the Doctor said "Oh, yes. One day"... HalfShadow 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah. If that were Caan, then how would we ever see more from the Daleks? We're going to need him to live for quite a while, or start breeding. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting the whole time-travel element of Doctor Who. One episode doesn't necessarily take place after another; quite a few technically take place before. For instance, Smith and Jones takes place roughly 'now', The Shakespeare Code takes place in the mid-1500's (where the Doctor meets an extremely pissed-off Queen who's wants him dead for something he hasn't even done yet(!)), Gridlock takes place nearly 5 billion years from now and Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution... takes place in the 1930's.

Like I said, there's no proof the Dalek is Caan, and, at best, this is original research, but it would be a brillant wrap-up if it were... HalfShadow 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the BBC's Fear Forecasters for the episode believed that it might've been the case (see third bottom pic), so you're not alone in that belief. Of course, that's not the BBC's official words, just those of a group of people, and even if the Utah Dalek was Caan the BBC would have to bring back the Daleks in another way. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We best just not refer the Dalek in Dalek to be Dalek Cann as no info of that Dalek in Dalek to be Cann so untill that more info about the history of that Dalek in Dalek it's best if we just leave it. VitasV 24/7/07

Dalek Caan knew that he was the last of the Daleks, unlike the Dalek in Dalek (Who we also knew fell through the time vortex after The Last Great Time War - Not through an emergency temporal shift). So, to cut it short, I don't think it is Caan! --Ed the Penguin 11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror

How come there is no page on the Doctor Who videogame Doctor Who The Mines of Terror with the Sixth Doctor. Somebody best do this as it has been out for a long time and still no page on Wikipedia about it. VitasV 24/7/2007

A long time? 1985 is too long ago for the usual videogame writers here. meanwhile, it's mentioned in Doctor Who merchandise and you can play it here. Totnesmartin 09:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But still someone create a page about it. VitasV 24/7/2007

You, perhaps? Totnesmartin 09:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I don't know the storyline to it or the enemies. If someone at least starts to put down a little info on it then I will go on so please can someone please start a page on it. VitasV 24/7/2007

• Here are a couple of things I found using something called a "google". Should be enough to get you started.[5][6] Totnesmartin 10:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move of Synthespians™ → Synthespians

Please see talk:Synthespians™ for a requested move discussion of the above PDA. Tim! 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Final result: The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. The request appears to be the result of a misunderstanding, and the symbol appears to be an integral part of the title. The current title does not appear to conflict with WP:MOS-TM. HalfShadow 00:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Movie Production Code

Whoever thinks they are smart by deleting The Movie Production Code all the time, your just some sick weirdo. The production code for the movie is TVM and please stop getting rid of it. If you don't believe me then just go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/tvmovie/detail.shtml And if you still don't believe me then there's just something wrong with you. VitasV 26/7/2007

Thanks for the personal attack on a number of your fellow editors. The reason the production code "TVM" is removed from List of Doctor Who serials is that no source has been provided for said code. Similarly, your contention that the TVM is actually called just The Movie has seen removal on a number of occasions because, yet again, you have provided no source for such. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do have a source. Go to the link I have in my last log and that will show you I'm right. It's not that hard. VitasV 26/7/2007

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by your "last log". However, I do know that none of the repeated attempts to add the code have come with a citation. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look just go to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/tvmovie/detail.shtml and that will show you that I'm right about the production code. VitasV 26/7/2007

And finally, we have something to work with. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this stretches the meaning of "Production Code" - I'm pretty certain that this wasn't a code used during actual production, but something used for convenience by fans later, including (latterly) the BBC. Stephenb (Talk) 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But still the official Doctor Who website says it that TVM is the production code so I think it's best we just leave the production code for The Movie to be TVM so can we just leave the production code to be TVM and just stop fighting please. VitasV 26/7/2007

I doubt this is even intended as a "production code" - "TVM" is common shorthand for "TV Movie". One would think that established sites such as Outpost Gallifrey might have picked up on this - they use an "unofficial code" from one of the radio plays. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, I've hauled out TVM producer Philip Segal's book on the making of the film, Doctor Who: Regeneration, and right at the back is the BBC Production number: 50/LDX071Y/01X 1996. Does this mean anything to anyone? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look can just leave the production code to be TVM and just stop arguing. When there is any new news about the production code for The Movie, then we can change it but untill now, we'll just leave it to be TVM OKAY! VitasV 26/7/2007

(to Digby) I'd say that sounds more official (and realistic) than "TVM". --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Mark: IIRC there was some publication which said that the production codes used for Doctor Who during the JNT years were simply keeping up a tradition, and such codes were no longer in general use in the BBC, replaced by codes similar to those you quote. I doubt that the American or BBC producers would have used a simplistic a code as "TVM" at any time, at least as a production code. As I said on your talk page, the fan need to "keep everything consistent" is strong, as is the need to fill database fields :-) Stephenb (Talk) 09:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look can we just leave the production code to be TVM for the time being PLEASE and just stop this fighting right now OKAY. VitasV 26/7/2007

When the only potentially citable use of "TVM" is in doubt, I suggest we leave blank for now. Stephenb (Talk) 09:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense - we now have two conflicting reports, plus the movie's credits don't seem to have anything in the way of a code. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Look can we just leave it to be TVM for now. This starting to become more of a war. VitasV 26/7/2007

Only on your part Vitas. No one else agrees with you. You can leave it blank since you're editing against consensus. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've clipped the field. Aside from the fact that the movie TV or otherwise, is a standalone venture, there doesn't need to be a blank space or one listing the obvious "TVM". — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since VitasV (finally!) came up with a source actually stating a production code, I'm willing to accept TVM, as the BBC at least has some authority when it come to Doctor Who. Should it matter if it was used during production or assigned post-production? --Edokter (Talk) 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a post-production production code..? :-) Stephenb (Talk) 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not :) Tell you what: I'll put the code in with a note and source. --Edokter (Talk) 11:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When we have an alternate production code from a book written by the producer...? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can put that in as well. --Edokter (Talk) 11:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It would serve WP:NPOV better if you did. Although I'm not sure it won't simply open up another edit war. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like Someguy0830's edits: there was no code, so simply removing the column works! Stephenb (Talk) 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it pretty much the way it is: fully sourced and keeping the fans happy. --Edokter (Talk) 12:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the text slightly so that it does not explicitly state that "TVM" is a production code. ("TVM" is used in the BBC's online episode guide.) That addresses the very real possibility that "TVM" means "TV Movie", not the actual production code.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the page does actually say in bold: Production code: TVM. Never mind, I misunderstood. --Edokter (Talk) 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then lets just leave the production code to be TVM since you just leave an empty space where it says production code for The Movie so I say we just fill up the space where it says production code with TVM since you can't really find the original code and just be on our way. VitasV 28/7/2007

Doctor Who story chronology

Just asking but if it's okay. Could I make a page on a list of all the Doctor Who stories including the Books and audios in chronological order like what happened in between stories so people will know what really happened so please can I make this page though it will take a very long time to make. VitasV 28/7/2007

The first problem is that most of the info that would go into this comes through original research. Also some of what you suggest already exists at Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. There are also other websites that cover this same subject a few of which are mentioned in this previous thread [7] about this same subject. MarnetteD | Talk 00:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'd love your help at Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I'll be just making a list of what happens to the Doctor e.g. The Movie then The Eight Doctors then Rose. Not about the years the Doctor vists. I'll be just filling in the gaps as you might say so people will know what happens to the Doctor between those certain stories. Plus I haven't started a page myself before and I think this will be a great idea. So please just let me have a go at this.VitasV 28/7/2007

So can I do it, please? VitasV 28/7/2007

It wont be about the years the Doctor has visited but what stories come in order including the books and audios. I'll call it Doctor Who Story Chronology. VitasV 28/7/2007

Moved to Doctor Who story chronology to conform with article title guidelines. (As an aside, I hope you'll be OK with other editors changing and reworking the article, as happens with all Wikipedia articles.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Its okay but some idiot just tried to put a speedy deletion notice on my page. I hope you can some how help me not have it deleted and also you can view it yourself. Just go to Doctor Who story chronology though it will take a long time for it to be finished. VitasV 28/7/2007

I have to say, your response to the prod (it wasn't a speedy deletion) doesn't reassure me. Instead of addressing the editor's concerns, you instead left an angry message on their talk page:

"Why are you trying to delete my page. All it is, is about all the Doctor Who stories that go in order. The other people who are involved in other Doctor Who related articles allowed me to do this so don't think about getting it deleted."

That was followed up with "some idiot just tried to put a speedy deletion notice on my page" here. Please remember that any editor has the right to propose deletion if they feel the article is without merit. More importantly, please remain civil while editing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, it is misleading to say you were "allowed" to do this. Beyond the fact that the editors here are not in "control" of Wikipedia (nor are any other editors, for that matter), there were only two responses, both of which suggested that the article wasn't needed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay but still can you try to not get my page deleted as it is takeing me a very long time to make. VitasV 28/7/2007

No, I cannot agree to that. First off, it is not "your" page. Please keep that in mind, as taking ownership of pages is an easy mistake to make. Secondly, the article will have to meet the same standards expected of any Wikipedia page. If there are concerns being raised right from the start, you should seriously consider addressing them, and assessing the true value of the article, before you invest the time. The article will not be kept just because it took a long time to create. Finally, please review how you are handling criticism from other editors, in this case and others (such as the "Eighth Doctor production code" incident.) You'll find that your concerns are more likely to be addressed if other editors feel you are willing to listen to their concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who video game confirmed

http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php

I'm guessing it is too early to start a page on it? 86.157.45.164 09:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Much too early I'm afraid. We don't even know the title yet. Premature articles about video games, films and albums tend to get deleted if there's no solid information in them. Best leave this until closer to Christmas. Totnesmartin 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot image for 42 (Doctor Who)

There's something of a disagreement over which image to use to illustrate the plot of episode article 42 (Doctor Who): Image:Doctor42.jpg or Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg. It'd be useful if we had wider input, so we can get the issue decided, one way or the other. The discussion is over here. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(another) New article

Drax (Time-Lord) has been created, for anyone who wants to help out there. Totnesmartin 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikified some, and moved to Drax (Time Lord). --Edokter (Talk) 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to mention that Drax returned again later and met up with the Sixth Doctor. VitasV 29/7/2007

Doctor Who story chronology AfD

Doctor Who story chronology is now up for a deletion debate. Totnesmartin 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The AfD is now closed. The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. --Edokter (Talk) 12:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles in the AFD crosshairs

Just as a heads up this AFD should send a chill through anyone who has put effort into writing articles based upon Doctor Who episodes. If Star Trek articles can be nominated for deletion -- and this one currently sits at about 50/50 -- then Doctor Who isn't safe, at least articles based upon minor episodes and, possibly, the 2005- series episodes as well. Don't you think Wikipedia has become just the friendliest place? 23skidoo 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, as far as I can see, the article genuinely suffers from being, essentially, a plot summary with little real world context or sourced analysis (see WP:PLOT), and I must confess I have doubts that it currently asserts sufficient notabilty for being separate from List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes. Of course, that isn't to say the necessary repair work couldn't be done.

It might be a good idea if people were to trawl through various Who story articles to see whether any of them need "beefing up" a bit. It's not as if we're lacking in tomes on the production of classic series Who, and new series is all over (even the respectable parts of) the media, and has handy episode commentaries etc. (Makes note to look through the Hartnell era.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't a case of content. If the article needs to have a plot summary shortened or whatever, that's a content issue. Same with citing sources (which appears to be a major reason for people wanting it deleted. Where the dangerous precedent exists is in making a POV decision on which episodes of a series are notable enough to warrant their own articles and which are not. It could be argued that due to its huge notability, every individual Star Trek franchise episode from 1966 to 2005 is notable enough to warrant its own article, just as every Doctor Who episode/arc warrants its own. Do you really want people to start arguing whether Daleks in Manhattan deserves and article but Black Orchid (Doctor Who) does not? 23skidoo 22:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I'd be more open than some to re-examining whether all stories justify having their own individual articles. But I doubt that's something we'll have to contemplate in the immediate future. Your assessment of the situation is somewhat erroneous. Article content and lack of sources, and the failure to tend to either after having been tagged accordingly — these are precisely the issues which concerned the user who nominated Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager). As such, panicking at the potential for some kind of AfD contagion spreading across the episodes seems a tad premature. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's leaning toward Keep now... That AfD surely gave the articel a boost into fixing the issues that it suffered from. It was a bad article, but not anymore. --Edokter (Talk) 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - once again it wasn't really a content issue, though. And AFD nominations shouldn't be used for article improvement drives. 23skidoo 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't, but they do have that effect anyway - people interested in a topic see it heading for the chop, and rescue it with good edits. I agree, though, that this is not the best way of building an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers at AfD

List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers has been sent for deletion by Aderack 70.51.8.214 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggest we start commenting, and improving the article, as it does lack sources. --Edokter (Talk) 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't see the point of this article. It really does mostly duplicate Companion (Doctor Who) and by adding guest stars, it just becomes a cast list duplicating the individual episode articles. I might actually lean towards supporting deletion, but I need to investigate further. However we should pay attention to the comment made by the second or third voter who appears to be of the opinion that most of the Doctor Who character articles -- including those of the Doctor himself -- should be deleted because of insufficient "real world" sources. (Which suggests the poster has never visited a SF bookstore with a Doctor Who section before). Although he was quickly called to task by others, it's this kind of unaware opinion that results in us having to chase down multiple AFDs. 23skidoo 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, some character articles are lacking in real-world sources. Jo Grant is an example - all in-universe except for 2 sentences. Totnesmartin 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that I am (slowly) working on providing more references for Doctor Who lists, particularly Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who, List of music featured on Doctor Who and List of UNIT personnel in Doctor Who, the latter awaiting my uncovering my Doctor Who Poster Magazine Issue 4. Wolf of Fenric 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sea Devils not Sea Devil

Just like to mention that the page title for the Sea Devils is called Sea Devil which in fact is a mistake. Can someone please change it from Sea Devil to Sea Devils please. VitasV 3/8/2007

Sorry, no. There's a policy that explains that.--OZOO (What?) 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus, Sea devils is already taken. I've added some disambiguation though. --Edokter (Talk) 09:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but we can change the page to Sea Devils wit a capital "D" as that page doesn't. Or you can call the page "Sea Devils (Doctor Who)". VitasV 4/8/2007

VitasV, take a look at the policy that OZOO referred you to - we use the singular for titles whenever possible. So "Dalek", "Cyberman", "Sea Devil", not "Daleks", "Cybermen" or "Sea Devils". --Brian Olsen 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We might consider rewriting the intro to read along the lines of 'A sea devil is a member of a race of ...' to clarify why the article is entitled Sea Devil instead of Sea Devils. The reason, of course, being this is the convention in encyclopedias. DonQuixote 01:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am itching to move Sea Devil to Sea Devil (Doctor Who), reason being the page Sea devil which is a disambiguation page (which we could move to Sea Devil (disambiguation); both involve about the same ammount of work fixing disambig links). As far as I know, having an article and a disambiguation page on two different capitalizations is not good. Input please. --Edokter (Talk) 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're itching to do it, do it! Be bold! It's certainly a sensible move. Totnesmartin 08:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. We will need to clean up the redirects through Sea Devil so that that page can be redirected to Sea devil. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It already is redirected. I've started to disambiguate the links. --Edokter (Talk) 11:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Not the most pleasent of jobs... --Edokter (Talk) 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC Books

Many Doctor Who books are in serious need of clean up. The Indestructible Man (Doctor Who) needs clean up, Reckless Engineering needs a better quality cover image, Interference: Book One needs a cover. Just so you know.(Black Dalek 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

One down. I added back the cover for Interference: Book One that got deleted a while back. Included more of the fair-use info this time, so it hopefully won't be removed again. -Ebyabe 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Took a digital pic of my copy of Reckless Engineering and replaced the one in the article with it. Hope that's OK. :) -Ebyabe 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start expanding the articles, starting with The Burning (Doctor Who). Wooden Heart (Doctor Who) and Sting of the Zygons also need covers.(Black Dalek 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)).

Doctor Who seasons templates

Could we have doctor who seasons templates to be placed at the bottom of episode/ serial articles, like the Template:Dalek Stories? Here is an example that covers Season 1. StuartDD 19:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's nice, but it does seem a template too far.(Black Dalek 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)).

I thought It would be a good idea. Most other t.v programmes have a season list at the start of the article (such as Friends episodes) . Since Doctor Who episodes already have a previous/next story in the opening template, I thought it would be better if this went at the bottom. StuartDD 15:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack Harkness is a featured article candidate

The article Jack Harkness is a featured article candidate. Please feel free to leave comments.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to transclude it to the main WP:FAC page. — Edokter • Talk • 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Table format

I introduced a table format for the cast over on Human Nature (Doctor Who episode) and I am willing to do this for the 'new' Doctor Who episodes if it is agreed this format is better; this was my reason for introducing it in the first place but as someone kindly pointed out the format had already been decided; I think the table improves the proffesional feel of the article but I'd like some feedback from project members. Thanks. AiselneDrossel 12:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone else reading, you can see what the table looks like here. Personally, I feel that the current way is a bit better, mainly because it's simpler. A cast list (which would have only two entries in a table) is easy enough to comprehend, and most other articles I've seen in Wikipedia (and even most outside) use a simple format when possible. The table just feels overly elaborate. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think the table is necessary. With only two columns, it looks a little busy. --Brian Olsen 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, if possible, we can make an invisible table where it doesn't look busy but the entries are aligned neatly. DonQuixote 19:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Smith/The Doctor	...	David Tennant
Martha Jones	...	Freema Agyeman
Joan Redfern	...	Jessica Hynes
Jeremy Baines	...	Harry Lloyd
Tim Latimer	...	Thomas Sangster
Hutchinson	...	Tom Palmer
Rocastle	...	Pip Torrens
Jenny	...	Rebekah Staton
Mr. Clark	...	Gerard Horan
Lucy Cartwright	...	Lauren Wilson
Phillips	...	Matthew White
Doorman	...	Derek Smith
Mr. Chambers	...	Peter Bourke

You can also simply use border=0 instead of style="background:none". — Edokter • Talk • 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a slight difference. With your method, you can see a white table background against the bluish normal background. (Original version here doesn't have that). I still think it's better without any table. Besides, something about doing it this way just looks unbalanced. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... lousy TTFs at work. But since the articles have a white background as well, you wouldn't see the difference. I like the plain cast list better anyway. — Edokter • Talk • 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Impossibles

It seems that articles for Zachary Cross Flane and Scooti Manista, characters from The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, have been created. Their creator may need help in asserting notability. Assuming that's remotely possible. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talk page and proposed deletion of these articles. In the end, while these are unquestionably good-faith contributions, the characters just aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode citations

I have begun to compile a list of citations for episodes and serials here. Such citations will be needed for improving articles towards GA and FA status, and will save effort as they can be copy and pasted. The list is hideously incomplete because so far I've only copied existing citations from the few articles which contain them. If thought to be a worthwhile exercise I can move the list to a subpage of this project. Tim! 10:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't somebody else working on this as well? I seem to recall making some edits to something just like this, but in table format, a while back, but I can't remember where it was, or who began it. It's a good idea, I think it would be useful to have as a subpage of the project. --Brian Olsen 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WHO NOTES, I believe.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's it. Wow, hasn't been touched in a while - I'll try and take a look at it. Tim, would you consider continuing your work there, since the page has already been started? --Brian Olsen 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's cool, I never knew about that page. I'll update that one instead, cheers. :) Tim! 10:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created the template {{Cite serial}}. It's identical to {{Cite episode}}, except it puts the serial title in italics, instead of quotes. I've been attempting to clean up the citation page - the page was created by copying the serials list, so there's a lot of info in there we don't need. I'm going to go ahead and change the classic serials to use this template. --Brian Olsen 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I've just done a pretty massive overhaul of the page. I removed all of the info on production codes, number of episodes, etc, because it all was carried over from the episode list. This page is really meant to be just a place to copy the citation info from, and it's probably going to get very, very long, so I got rid of anything extraneous. I added a column to display the citations as they would appear on the page, which can be hard to determine by looking at just the code. --Brian Olsen 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job, but all the (new series) episode title in the list itself now show in italics instead of quoted. — Edokter • Talk • 23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They did before, actually, I just neglected to fix it. I think this page was created back when we were still italicizing the new series. I'll take care of it in a bit. --Brian Olsen 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeds of Death/Hartnell story

If the story about William Hartnell turning up on the set of The Seeds of Death is true, I'm a bit surprised that nobody refers to it in the commentary for the DVD. I am also made a bit suspicious by a more detailed account of what is said to be in the source. This web page says:

UNIT was, according to Peter Bryant, "set up to prevent Earth being attacked by aliens", and was quite successful, prompting the production team to decide that from 1970 the Doctor would be exiled to Earth and forced to help UNIT as their Scientific Advisor. Patrick Troughton was very excited by this idea, but problems arose for him whilst working on The Seeds Of Death, when William Hartnell arrived unexpectedly in the studio, thinking that he was still the Doctor and began ordering people around. In an American book about the series, Peter Bryant recalled what happened:

"Pat was very irritated by Bill's mad behaviour, and went over and told him to get out, but Bill started telling everyone about the time he said, 'One day, I shall come back', and explained that the time was now. Things got worse and worse, particularly when Bill saw Wendy Padbury (who played companion Zoe), as she was wearing a very sixties 'dolly bird' costume. He called it explicit porn, and said we were all cursed. The BBC security men then threw him out, but I was saddened by such a great man being reduced to foolishness by his illness."

This incident disturbed Troughton greatly, and he announced that he wanted to leave the programme, as did Frazer Hines and Wendy Padbury. This caused a great deal of consternation, as Peter Bryant was also bent on leaving to work on more adult drama programmes.

The source is given as Doctor Who In The Swinging Sixties, by Eric Luskin (Star Books, 1988) not quite the same title as is given in the Wikipedia entry (Eric Luskin, Doctor Who in the 60s). There is a lot of circumstantial detail that doesn't check out about this story; apart from anything else, the front page of the site in question makes it clear that it is not a serious assemblage of facts, and includes some fiction (reference to 'Robin Bland', in fact a pseudonym, as if this was a real person makes that quite clear). Argument from silence is never foolproof, but it's surprising that the authors of other Doctor Who reference books chose to draw a veil over this incident, if they knew of it.

If the story was indeed The Seeds of Death, Hartnell's reported reaction to Zoe's costume is rather excessive, as she spends most of it in a fairly modest outfit, certainly in comparison with some of her other costumes. The timing in this account of Troughton, Hines and Padbury's decisions to leave the programme do not square at all with the much more detailed sequence recorded by Wood and Miles (with back-up from BBC archives).

And I do not believe in the source either. I have found no record of any book anywhere on any topic by Eric Luskin (the earnest presenter of a couple of American documentaries on Doctor Who). There are a couple of books with similar titles: Stephen Baycroft's The Promethean Magician: Doctor Who in the Sixties (apparently self-published by the author in Sydney, in 1996), and of course Howe, Stammers and Walker's Doctor Who: The Sixties (Virgin, 1994).

So I have concluded that the story is a joke in rather poor taste, and deleted it from the article on The Seeds of Death; but I am open to persuasion if anyone else has seen it in a real source. Nwhyte 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing. This story is complete and utter bilge. I pity the poor sod who was fooled into thinking this was genuine (assuming it wasn't subtle vandalism). I mean, the same "Habris History of Who" has an article on the work of the Restoration Team, which states that Ali G wiil be digitally inserted into The Happiness Patrol. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeat Image request

I'd like to repeat my request for the covers for Wooden Heart (Doctor Who) and Sting of the Zygons. This are the only new adventures without covers (even unreleased ones), whlist these remain blank.Thank you.(Black Dalek 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)).

Spin-offs versus tie-ins

This debate has popped up from time to time, as there is an important semantic distinction. It strikes me that now -- given three discrete and literal televised spin-offs from the parent series, which will be attracting a lot of attention -- might be a decent time to revisit the discussion. Why is it, exactly, that original novels and comics and audio plays are listed as "spin-offs" rather than tie-in works? The Virgin New Adventures and monthly Big Finish releases are are meant to be extensions of the main series into other media -- to tie into it. The Gallifrey audio series is a spin-off, as it deals with peripheral elements from the parent series. The BBC7 Eighth Doctor adventures are a licensed extension of Doctor Who itself.

I suggest a big think about the terminology at play here. An article about tie-ins is certainly no less relevant than one about spin-offs. The problem is, this article includes both under an imprecise umbrella. It does little for clarity to lump in Torchwood with a discussion on Target novelisations. I suppose "derivative works" would work for a broader discussion. --Aderack 06:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep them as spin-offs as tie-ins mostly mean bringing characters from other stories into one stories. An example is like if they bring in someone like spider man into Doctor Who which by that meaning the story will be a tie-in. VitasV 17/8/2007

You're thinking of crossovers. See Tie-in.--Aderack 00:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD for List of Time of Lords

FYI, the article List of Time Lords is up for deletion here on AfD. While I have no real opinion on this AfD, thought you guys might. Cheers! Zidel333 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued that "no real opinion" equates to "keep", these days. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)