Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 15

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 16 August 2007 and 26 September. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• Archive 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

Wider discussion needed on companion templates

Please could I draw your attention to the following discussion Template talk:Seventhdoctorcompanions#Non-canon and ask you to further comment such that a consensus may be reached on this issue. I edited out the non-canon stuff, but it has been reinstated, complete with inaccuracies that I initially corrected such as the inclusion of Dimensions in Time as part of Season 26 and the incorrect links for the likes of Original Sin, (going to Original sin), and Set Piece, (going to Set piece). Also removed are the links to Seasons, listed here, I instated. I am not going to edit this again without further discussion by other editors otherwise it will descend into an edit-war. Wolf of Fenric 14:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I'm happy to go with the majority view, and perhaps a separate template can be devised in time for the other media.

My original reversion was because of an unilateral edit without reference to any consensus, and I would have thought that the reversion of good links mentioned above would have been seen as accidental, as indeed they were. I would also remind people that there is no such thing as intrinsic canonicity, only individuals' opinion on the subject. To resist the temptation to label things canon and non-canon, please read Canon or not?. Metebelis 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Sorting

Has anyone considered including articles nominated for deletion that are of interest to this WikiProject in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article

I've recreated Stuart Fell - the previous version was speedied as nonsense. This one isn't. Totnesmartin 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Love & Monsters - Clom continuity issue

Hi,

I have added a part titled "Clom Continuity Reference" to the Love & Monsters discussion page, but no-one has said anything about it yet. I just want to see if anyone agrees with the below to decide if part of the article's continuity should be removed. So you don't have to bother to go to the discussion page, I have pasted it in below:

If I remember correctly, Clom is actually Raxacoricofallapatorius' twin planet, therefore there is all possibility that The Doctor and Rose have never heard of it! For example, Mondas is Earth's twin planet, only because they were extremely similar to each other, not because they were close to each other... Anybody agree so this can be removed from the article? --Ed the Penguin 11:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because it is. :) - NP Chilla 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Expanded Universe section on Template:Doctor Who

I asked on the Template if we could move the spin-off related material to a separate section on the template, but no-one has replied. Anyone think we should do this? StuartDD 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing Images

I was quite shocked to see that The Edge of Destruction and The Keys of Marinus don't have screencaps. Could someone add them?(81.77.195.85 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

Done. Wolf of Fenric 20:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've also done The Space Pirates, "Fear Her" and "Evolution of the Daleks" that were also similarly lacking. Wolf of Fenric 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles on Top of the Pops

I was making some edits to The Chase, and discovered that the popular story that the clip from that serial of the Beatles on Top of the Pops peforming "Ticket to Ride" is the only surviving footage of them from that show is untrue - you can go to the BBC's web page for Top of the Pops and watch a clip of them performing "I Feel Fine". I've removed it from The Chase, but I think that bit of trivia appears on a few different pages, although I can't rememeber which. I just mention it here so that it'll be in folks' heads - if you see it anywhere, it should be removed. --Brian Olsen 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the fan lore on this should be specific, that the footage in The Chase is the only surviving clip from that particular edition of Top of the Pops. But that is not interesting enough to be worth recording, so your edit is sensible.Nwhyte 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolution

I've made a page for Absolution (Doctor Who). Could we wait until a image is released until the page for the girl who never was is made?(Black Dalek 13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)).

I've uploaded an image. Is it safe? It's my first attempt.(Black Dalek 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)).

Help

Just asking, could someone please tell how do I report someone for vandilism. Once answeared you may remove this message. Victory93 27/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory93 (talk • contribs) 09:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Over here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. (Just to add context to those not familiar with the dispute, Victory93 wishes to report me for removing video games from Doctor Who story chronology.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

VistasV, you can't report soemone for vandalism if they edits they make are not vandalism. It's a little ironic when you were making constant vadnalism edits in renaming Doctor Who "the movie" after being specifically told not to several times, and barred from editing. Since the general concensus on the talk page was not to include the games, I would suggest that it is YOU doing the vandalism this time as well. StuartDD 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who story chronology renaming

There is a proposal on Doctor Who story chronology to change the title to Timeline of the Doctor (Doctor Who) — feel free to leave comments on the talk page. StuartDD 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Discusssion is closed. Move was oposed. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drax (Doctor Who)

Drax (Doctor Who) has been nominated for deletion. Those wishing to participate in the discussion may find it here. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

New PROD AFD

Big Finish Doctor Who chronology had been PRODded as an obsolete page. just letting you know.--OZOO (What?) 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the prod, not because I necessarily disagree that it's now obsolete, but because I think that an argument for its retention could be made, and I think it merits discussion. I don't much care whether that discussion takes place on the article's talk page or at AfD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Josiah Rowe, i've AFD'd the page. --OZOO (What?) 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline on fiction: Delete Doctor Who-related articles?

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That would probally invlove merging several of the books and audios, as most of them have only a few lines on them. Most of them are just:

"page Tilte" is a book/ audio based on the television series. {{DWspinoff}} {{DoctorWho-stub}}
Some of the characters would probally also have to be merged. I would assume that the episode pages could stay individual pages, as most of them have several ouside sources to reference them. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The three articles that immediately come to mind are planets, items and vehicles. One example on the new guide is:
"The Xenosaga lists on planets, terms, and organizations had no chance of showing notability, so they were transwikied to the Xenosaga Wikia and redirected to the main Xenosaga page."
These pages would probally have to be dealt with in the same way.
The only other ones I can think of (on the Template) that may be affected are the companion and spin-off companion pages. StuartDD ( t • c ) 16:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP of interest to WP:WHO

I'd like to draw people's attention to an issue with the article on Freema Agyeman (here). If anyone does have extra sources on her, that would be great. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who books

I asked on the books talk page a while ago if we should merge this into the Doctor Who template. No-one has replied. Anyone think we should do this? StuartDD ( t • c ) 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I say keep.(84.66.134.98 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)).

I don't think they should be merged - the main template is looking rather bloated to me. I think it should probably be trimmed somewhat, rather than added to. --Brian Olsen 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge closed - opposed. StuartDD ( t • c ) 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Paul McGann on Deletion Review

For your consideration: Deletion review. — Edokter • Talk • 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Style guide for classic series: Season v series

I've just reverted a couple of changes on Sarah Jane Smith where the editor changed "season" to "series". Although I've always thought that "season" was the canonical way to refer to a set of classic series stories that were shown for the first time between summer of year 1 and summer of year 2, I just checked here and discovered that the style guide didn't cover it.

Here's my understanding of the convention for the classic series. If the community agrees with this, I'd like to include it in the style guide on the project page:

• The 25 minute (or 45 minute in the case of Colin Baker transmission is an episode or a part (for example, Spearhead From Space episode 1 is an episode.
• A set of episodes with a single production code is a series, or a story, or (less desirably) an arc (for example, Spearhead From Space is a series).
• A set of stories broadcast between summer of one year and summer of the next is a season (for example, Spearhead from Space, Doctor Who and the Silurians, The Ambassadors of Death and Inferno make up Season 7).

This has been pretty much constant convention since The Making of Doctor Who, as far as I can tell.

Apologies if this is already documented somewhere. Even if it is it should probably be on the main project page as well.

Wwhyte 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have some disagreements here, based on what the common usage seems to be:

• Single episodes are generally called just that - episodes - except when you're referring to the title of the episode, which might be "Episode One", "Part One", or just "One", depending on how it appeared on-screen. But you wouldn't say, for example, "'The Cave of Skulls' is a part of the serial An Unearthly Child". You'd just say episode.
• A set of episodes with a single production code is referred to as a serial, not a series, although it might also be referred to as a story, I suppose. An arc, though, is something different, and is less formally defined - when several serials are linked by some common theme or plot element, you might refer to that as an arc. For example, the E-Space trilogy, or the Key to Time storyline.
• The standard usage for British TV is to use series. However, the original program seems to use the American season, for some reason that's never been clear to me, and you're correct, that's what we use. However, for the 2005 program, for The Sarah Jane Adventures, Torchwood, and anything else, we use series.

I wasn't aware this wasn't in the main style guide; it probably should be. I'm pretty sure what I've listed above is standard usage, although please, somebody pipe in if I've got something wrong. --Brian Olsen 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly unusual for a British TV programme to use "season" in this context. My pet theory is that this dates back to the release of the Doctor Who Programme Guide in 1981, written by Jean-Marc L'officier. J-ML is American, of course, and I'd suggest that this is the first real reference to Doctor Who being produced in "seasons". If my memory serves, The Making of Doctor Who didn't break up its list of serials into anything more granular than Doctor by Doctor. --The Brain of Morbius 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just glanced at the first edition of The Making and whilst it doesn't actually break things down, the word "series" is used to mean the show as a whole and individual stories are called "serials" (and the list "The people who made Doctor Who" of codes, writers, directors and enemies neatly sidesteps the Mission to the Unknown situation altogether by not even listing it). My copy of the second edition isn't to hand. There's also the early DWMs and the fanzine "An Adventure in Time & Space" that may have been defining the vocabulary used, with L'officer just repeating it. From recollection Andrew Pixley and others have found both "series" and "season" used in internal paperwork throughout the show's history. Timrollpickering 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As for Wwhyte's list above, I'd disagree slightly on the following:

• The 25/45 minute bits are called "episodes" or "parts" interchangably, although from The Savages onwards one of these words is used on screen (apart from The Ice Warriors which just has "One" etc...) which is more accurate for the individual story but confusing for general discussion. All the bits of the first twenty-five Hartnell stories end with "next episode" so I'd reckon that's the "correct" word for that period.
• Annoyingly a lot of fans (usually US in my experience) use "episode" to mean a story/serial as a whole.
• "A set of episodes with a single production code is a series, or a story" - as said above it's "serial" not "series" and whilst generally true, any attempt at a hard and firm rule gets very confusing with Mission to the Unknown (which effectively is the fifth episode of a shared production with Galaxy 4 and it's not clear if it has a separate allocated production code or if things like "T/A" are just internal references for individual production team members) and The Trial of a Time Lord (one story on the credits, three production codes, four segments!).
• I've never heard "arc" used for an individual story (other than Trial given the confusion above) - it's used for a link across stories (e.g. The Key to Time).

Timrollpickering 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The style guide does require the use of UK English, which is episode-serial-series. "Season" is an Americanism, occasionally used due to the large US fan base, but to be consistent with British English, 'series' should be preferred overall, and MUST be used for the New Series and SJA which are branded, referred to and released as 'Series'. Just see http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/ for current use, although they do use 'season' for the classic series, interestingly enough.Gwinva 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with "series" in general, but I do have a concern that we might get awkward grammar in cases such as "In series 2 of the new series..." Is there possibly some better terminology we can use to differentiate the new series from the old? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a question I've had as well - what is the British-usage word for the American meaning of the word "series"? I sometimes feel like I'm typing in circles to avoid using it in the American sense. --Brian Olsen 23:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that "season" is used just because of the US fanbase and the use of "season" is the term used in British English publications for the classic series. Sometimes there are notable exceptions to the general trend in a variety of English (e.g. in Australia "labour" is spelt that way in all cases, except when referring to the Australian Labor Party) and imposing rigid conformity is going to create more confusion.

In terms of "what's the British-usage" for the US meaning of "series", I guess either "show", or "programme" or even "series" would get used. Sometimes something more specific e.g. "Dad's Army is a British sitcom about the Home Guard in the Second World War" and that article goes on to use "series" to mean the show as a whole and also for the individual seasons. And yet it doesn't seem confusing to read. Timrollpickering 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also don't agree that 'season' is an Americanism in this case (and I don't think so in the case of Blake's Seven either, though that may prove to be a can of worms I'll regret opening). Certainly since the early days of Doctor Who Magazine, when Doctor Who fandom was predominantly British, the word 'season' has been used.

"Arc" is what certain download communities use to refer to what we call "serials" or "stories", which was why I included it originally. I'm happy to leave it out. Wwhyte 23:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As Tim said above, there's no direct British equivalent to "Season", it depends entirely on context, or use (ie. the three words 'programme' 'show' and 'series' would be used, depending on the sentence). I hear what you're saying about season used in DW beyond the American context...so a note in the style guide would be helpful, as editors will continually try to change to general UK usage. Best to go with BBC on this: Season for classic, and 'series' for New Series (ha! two uses of the word series in one sentence...confused?) The new series has Series One, Two, Three etc...just look at publicity, website, DVD releases etc. You can't call these seasons...makes no sense in a UK context. Gwinva 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"...and 'series' for New Series": It's exactly that type of sentence I'd like to find some way to avoid, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any easy way to do this. The only other term I've heard applied for it by more than a single person is "the revival," but not everyone would get what that means. I guess, if the BBC goes with "New Series" for the revival and "series" also for each year of episodes, we're stuck with awkward grammar in places. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard 'revival' too, but usually as 'revived series' !!! Let's just face it... the English language is sometimes inconvenient, but we cope. Gwinva 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess there's no easy way around it in this case. The only thing I can think of that might help is if we put in the style guide to always capitalize New Series, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. It's mostly a fan label for it, and even then most fans don't capitalize it. It's tempting to invoke WP:IAR here, though, if people are supportive of this idea; people are going to wonder a lot less at capitalization than they are at the multiple meanings of "series." --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a section to the style guide with what seems to be emerging as the rough consensus, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who#Episode Terminology. While writing this, a solution struck me for the "series" problem: Simply refer to a series in the new series as "Series 1" or such, which would be distinct from "Season 1," which was in the classic series. However, this solution might not be as clear to readers. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Special episodes

Thanks to Infophile for putting the style guide together.

The only part I disagree on is calling "The Five Doctors" a special episode. To me, it's a special story (or even serial, even though it's only one part). An episode is clearly subordinate to a story; a one-off that's complete in itself is both a story and an episode, but it's more appropriate to refer to it as a story. (A "special episode" might be one like Trial of a Time Lord episode 14, which was specially lengthened to a gruelling 35 minutes).

Any objections to changing this to "story"? Wwhyte 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the 20th anniversary special. So, yes, I object. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying that I don't think it's right to call it a special *epsiode*. I'm fine with calling it a story or simply a special. Maybe the best thing to do is simply remove "or special episode" from the relevant part of the style guide. Any objections to that? Wwhyte 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that (just using "special"). In fact, that's what I'd originally planned to put in, but when I saw the use of "special episode" in a few places, I decided to add it in too. Maybe it's better to just use one term, though. Of course, we might also be able to fit in "special episode" for stories that are closer to normal episode length. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll have a shot at rephrasing it. Wwhyte 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks alright, now we just have to go through and implement it (assuming no one has any further concerns). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

So then - should it be "The Five Doctors" or The Five Doctors? I've been using italics, but maybe it really should be in quotes, if it's a special (like "The Christmas Invasion") rather than a TV movie (like Doctor Who). --Brian Olsen 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We talked about this one before, and the consensus was to use italics given that: 1. It's the length of a film, which all use italics, and 2. It's often rebroadcast in parts, as if it were a serial, which also use italics. For specials we'll have to use our own judgment in many cases. So far, the new series specials are both close to episodes, but I hear that instead of a series in 2009 they'll be doing 3 specials, and those could well end up being longer. If we find that out, we might want to consider going with italics for them, but that's a discussion for the far future. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Invariably: Mission

Okay the style guide currently covers almost everything, except Mission to the Unknown. Is it an "episode" or a "serial"? This isn't being pedantic for the sake of it but wanting to have clarity over how it's referenced in articles and everything. Timrollpickering 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, not surprising that would come up. Even the official sources seem to jump through hoops to avoid classifying it. I think we can all agree that it's an episode, and just leave it at that in all references to it. By definition, a serial has to have more than one episode to it. Maybe you could make a case for "special episode," though. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this in turn creates problems for the serial numbering system in use (which is a little dubious as it's presenting one side of what can be a heated argument as consensus) since it relies on Mission being number 19. Erm... Timrollpickering 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the same numbering system has been extended to new series episodes and the TVM, I doubt it's that much of a problem. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If anything, we should probably just refer to that numbering system as "story numbering," since in any case it contains more than serials now. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a single episode serial, or a single episode story - and with the single episodes of the new sereis. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So do we use the episode or story conventions vis a vis italicisation and everything when referring to it? Timrollpickering 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with the episode convention (parentheses). We do that for longer single-episode stories in the new season, and I don't think Mission's placement back in the classic series alone merits it an exception. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical origin of "season"

Just to close this off, http://members.fortunecity.com/tylorhan/wmd.html claims that the Doctor Who Programme Guide originated the use of "season" against "series". It might be interesting to include a historical note somewhere about this, to explain that the reason why we tend to use "season" is because the first book that split groups of stories up by year was written by someone who spoke North American English. Wwhyte 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a reliable enough source to put this in an article, but if you mean just in the style guide so people know why we do this, I think that should be fine. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Slitheen Stories?

Someone has created Template:Slitheen Stories. I thought that this was deleted previously. Should we have this template? StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Á

Yes, this was previously deleted (see discussion at TfD, so probably qualifies for a speedy delete. Gwinva 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tagged it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shame, "Aliens of London" / "World War Three", "Dalek", "Boom Town", Attack of the Graske, "Human Nature" / "The Family of Blood" and Revenge of the Slitheen - not enough to warrant a template? Wolf of Fenric 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Most of those are just continuity nods; all we really have are two stories which prominently feature the Slitheen (on the show, at least), and those were separated by a couple episodes. They're in a completely different ballpark from the Doctor's recurring nemeses such as the Daleks, Cybermen, and the Master, whose appearances span many seasons of the show. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understood their lack of Doctor Who appearances to be the reason behind the template's deletion the first time, along with the deletion of those I created for other recurring monsters like the Yeti and the Macra. However, I reintroduced the Slitheen one as they now span Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures - thinking of younger readers it may be useful to link from Revenge of the Slitheen to the Slitheen's previous appearances, although I suppose this will be included in the body of the article in time. Wolf of Fenric 19:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now added it as a continuity statement. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. At least the information is there now. Wolf of Fenric 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing episodes and serials

For those interested - there are now full lists of filled-in citation templates for every episode of the old and new series. The main page is at WP:WHO NOTES, with links to the page for each Doctor. All you need to do is copy and paste the text for the episode you want to cite. Even though these are primary sources, they should still be cited properly; my hope is that this will encourage people to cite facts more, as most every article but those listed as "featured" or "good" lack adequate references. --Brian Olsen 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) up for AfD

The article Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) if up for deletion due to being completely unsourced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exiting Worlds (Torchwood). — Edokter • Talk • 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Misleading list

Please see the following discussion regarding a section of the Companion (Doctor Who) article. Wolf of Fenric 17:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Companion Templates

Someone has changed the companion templates, and it now shows the first appearance of that regeneration as part of theie template - e.g Logopolis is at the start of the Fifth doctor's page. I don't think this needs included, as those stories don't really feature the doctor to the last scene, and only Colin Baker had a line at the end of the story (The Caves of Androzani). Plus, it creates a duplicate, as they are also at the end of the previous template. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed them as both Doctors appear with the companions in question in regeneration stories and the companions' tenure is ongoing throughout the regenerations. Wolf of Fenric 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the companions are only listed from when they actually start travelling, and not from when they first appear - even though they actually start at the end of the previous story. (except Nyssa). If the companions first appearacne doesn't count as part of their time, then why does the a regeneration of the Doctors start at his first appearance? Be consistant. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Example - Steven Taylor starts at the end of The Chase, but isn't included for that. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The templates are designed to be descriptive of the companions not the Doctor, so Peri, for example, starts with the Sixth Doctor from The Caves of Androzani onwards. Wolf of Fenric 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The templates seem to leave out the frst story of some companions because they don't actually travel with the doctor in that story, so the regeneration stories should not be included, as the companions don't actually trael with THAT doctor in that story. Again, Be consistant.

And why does it need duplicated anyway? - It is noted that they are a companion in a story, why does it need to be given twice because it happened to have two different verisons of the doctor in it? StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I think is covered on the companion page, travelling per se is not a criterion for companionship nor tenure. Just look at Liz Shaw - she's a companion, but does not travel per se. Also, there are many stories in which travelling is not seen. Wolf of Fenric 20:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And on the point of why duplicate - the templates display when the companions were with the Doctors. Viewed separately, for example on the Second Doctor, Fourth Doctor, Fifth Doctor, Sixth Doctor and Tenth Doctor pages, there is no duplication. So the inclusion of regeneration stories on both templates seems necessary. Wolf of Fenric 20:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but can we be consistant on whether a companions fist story counts as them being a companion.

Steven Taylor is not included in The Chase because he doesn't join till the end - but Adam Mitchell is included in The Long Game, when he only joins at the end. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the moment of acceptance occurs in that story, then yes. Otherwise no. Steven was in The Chase, but it is not until he is found to be in the TARDIS in The Time Meddler that the Doctor, Vicki and indeed the audience is aware of his presence. The Doctor does not reject him and hence Steven becomes a companion. Adam boards the TARDIS in "Dalek" with the Ninth Doctor's consent, albeit that it took Rose to persuade him. Hence, it is at the end of "Dalek" that Adam becomes a companion, whereas it is throughout the course of The Time Meddler that Steven gains acceptance as a companion. Like Nyssa after him, Steven's first appearance in Doctor Who is no different to that of the many other allies of the Doctor seen in the shows history who are not companions - the likes of Scott and Kyle in Earthshock, Group Captain Gilmore and Dr. Rachel Jensen in Remembrance of the Daleks and Mickey Smith and Jackie Tyler in "Aliens of London". Wolf of Fenric 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot gaps

Could someone please explain why the story articles contain such large white spaces, such that the first paragraph aligns with the bottom of the infobox on the right of the page? It makes pages more difficult to read and if it is not in accordance with some Wikipedia convention that I am unaware of, could these be removed? Wolf of Fenric 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Got an example? I still see anything neatly wrapped around the infobox? — Edokter • Talk • 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Some appear to have been fixed since I posted that, but still problematic - The Daleks, Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The Sensorites, The Reign of Terror, Planet of Giants and more... Wolf of Fenric 06:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see. It's the combination of the Table of Content and the infobox. Actually the infobox in uninvolved. The ToC however doesn't allow text to sit next to it, so the next section always starts below the ToC. — Edokter • Talk • 09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Wolf of Fenric 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Doctor Who season 1

Template:Doctor Who season 1 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. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I had asked previously if we could have season templates - here - but there wasn't much of a response. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

All images are being moved to the left

Wolf of Fenric has started to move all episode images to the left of the Plot sections. The MOS states images should be on the right, and moved down if they interfere with the infobox. I've asked him to stop and discuss it here first. — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He seems to have reverted his edits. — Edokter • Talk • 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I was unaware of the convention. It is a shame. Looks a lot better with the images on the left. No gaps. When I have time, I'll try and fix up moving some plot paragraphs up to fill the gaps. Wolf of Fenric 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: what is your screen resolution? Most article I see (at 1024x768) son't have any "gap" problem. — Edokter • Talk • 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1280 by 800, widescreen. Currently, for example, after the word Plot on The Five Doctors the gap lasts to the end of the info box. And the same for "Last of the Time Lords", (the latter of which comes after my messing which stopped at "Love & Monsters" when you notified me of my error). Wolf of Fenric 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved them down a bit. How does that look? — Edokter • Talk • 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit better. I've just done the First Doctor stories, (An Unearthly Child to The Tenth Planet). Have a look at how it appears to you. I believe I have got rid of the gaps there. I can't do anymore tonight, but I'll try and do the rest soon if they are OK. Wolf of Fenric 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

• 14 September 2007 - expires 19 September
  • Martha in the Mirror (PROD by User:Rambutan; infobox only article) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• 14 August Porsha Lawrence Mavour (redirected to Invasion of the Bane) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• 18 August WhovianNet --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Castellan (Doctor Who)

We now have an article on the above. I've redirected it to Arc of Infinity for the time being. Further comment/input is welcome, although I hardly need point out that the article's intended subject is not only lacking in significant independent coverage, but also has the sort of title which could refer to three Time Lord characters. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely discussion should come before redirecting? The article notes the different usages of the term Castellan in Doctor Who. The Castellan warrents a page as a recurring character, per Sabalom Glitz and Jake Simmonds. The Celestial Toymaker has a page despite only appearing in one story and some spin-off media. Wolf of Fenric 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of bad practice elsewhere does not justify further bad practice. Characters do not become notable purely because of a second appearance (see Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Notable_topics). In particular, the offending articles largely serve as violations of WP:PLOT, duplicating material which is better served by articles on the stories themselves. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article contains too much on plot, edit it down. Do not redirect pages without prior discussion - per "Articles that have potential to show notability should be given reasonable time to develop." I have also added some real world references. Also, this page serves a dual purpose detailing the Castellan as a Time Lord title and the Castellan (the character). Wolf of Fenric 09:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please allow others the opportunity to view pages and discuss the issue prior to redirecting Castellan (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Jake Simmonds and Celestial Toymaker. Wolf of Fenric 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Other recurring characters have their own pages on Wikipedia - Mike Novick (24), Leslie (Star Trek), Naomi Wildman (Star Trek: Voyager) and Soval (Star Trek: Enterprise), for example. Wolf of Fenric 09:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And? The key point you're missing here is that recurrence in itself is not evidence of notability. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

" recurrence in itself is not evidence of notability" - Indeed. If a character just appears in one story, then I'm sure that we can all agree that he doesn't deserve a separate page. Now suppose that character turns up in a second episode. That dosen't automatically qualify it for a separate article. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I take your point on recurrence alone and was about to add this tag to the articles in question:

However, Sabalom Glitz details his appearances in 4 The Mysterious Planet episodes, 2 The Ultimate Foe episodes, 3 Dragonfire episodes and in the novel Mission: Impractical. It also includes a real world reference pertaining to production ideas relating to the character. Similarly, Jake Simmonds details his appearances in "Rise of the Cybermen", "The Age of Steel" and "Doomsday" and includes real world references for production ideas. The Castellan explains the title "Castellan" in the context of Doctor Who and details the unamed Castellan's appearances in 4 Arc of Infinity episodes and "The Five Doctors" and includes real world references regarding fan reception of the Castellan. The combination of recurrence, crossing media/different meanings and real world references lends to their notability. Wolf of Fenric 17:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws here. The Glitz "Production notes" constitutes one idea a writer had about Ace losing her virginity, and ought to be covered at the episode concerned; the note on Simmonds' deleted scene is already covered at the relevant episode article; and your "real world" coverage of the Castellan uses a blog as a source! And these are side issues, anyway. If you look this section, you ought to see that these character articles constitute unnecessary content forking which largely duplicates material better covered at the relevant story articles. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call detailing how articles comply to Wikipedia guidelines "grasping at straws". I have already looked at your citation and cannot see enough to support your claims to redirect to story pages, (most of which on a side issue are sorely lacking in references, even primary ones). I can, however, see an argument for merging presented on the page you cite, if anything. If these pages were to be merged, I would suggest something like List of minor recurring characters in Doctor Who. For now, I would request that these pages be left intact as the discussion continues - especially as there are currently only three members of the Doctor Who WikiProject contributing to the debate and said three have been the most active in recent days. I still think a wider consensus is needed. Wolf of Fenric 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was a redirect, it should be to "partial list of Time lords" or "List of minor characters". I don't think a separate page is needed, but let's wait a few days and see if any other information is added. StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the plot details and revamped the Castellan (Doctor Who) article. On terms of notability, Castellan (Doctor Who) has more citations, (valid or not), than many of the story articles. Perhaps we should condense them into lists like Smallville (season 1) or List of The Wonder Years episodes? If Doctor Who must restrict its presence on Wikipedia to the bare essentials, then why should individual Doctor Who stories receive special treatment not afforded to other television series? I can't see that going down well. Notability is very subjective. Merge, maybe. Redirect, no. Wolf of Fenric 21:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps we should condense them into lists" If only. Imagine not not having to kick rumours and fan theories off all those different story articles... --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia tolerates this as it allows new editors to find their feet and learn the ropes. Wolf of Fenric 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

With these changes, I say keep the article. StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Overlinks on companion templates

Where a companion appears more than once, what's wrong with having a link in each reference? The subsequent ones keep on getting removed--is there a "overlinks" policy I should be aware of? It looks better aesthetically if each one is linked. It doesn't imply at all (as someone put forward) that there are 2 companions with the same name. What's with this issue? Metebelis 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style recommends only wikilinking the first time it's mentioned in the article. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand this in the text body. But in a template box? Metebelis 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Same rule, I think. Wolf of Fenric 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be the same rule, but the MoS is a guideline, not a policy, so we can go against it if there's a good enough reason to do so. In this case, I think that might actually be the case. Aesthetics of templates might be a sufficient reason, since most of the time style is just about aesthetics anyways. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

But if to the casual reader it implies that the Tenth Doctor was accompanied by 2 Donnas for example? Wolf of Fenric 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think many people are likely to jump to that conclusion, though it is a remote possibility. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Content cut out in American broadcasts

As you may know, the American broadcasts of Doctor Who and Torchwood (with DW airing on Sci-Fi and BBC America, and TW airing on BBC America) will sometimes cut stuff out of the episodes due to time (apparently, there are less commercials aired during the shows in the UK). The longer the episode, the more gets cut out (apparently, the third season finale will have a lot removed[1]).

I have two proposals:

• 1) The article for each episode that had something cut out will have a section detailing what was removed.

or

• 2) A specific article dealing with the cut content should be made, listing what was removed from the individual episodes.

Thoughts? --DrBat 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Off-hand, I would think that it belongs in the individual articles. It would give them more weight, and we'd just have to add links to a "cut content" article anyway. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For your reference, DrBat, there are not less adverts on the BBC, but NONE, hence the programmes are designed to fill a 45min slot, with a few self-promos at the end to make up the full 45min. From memory, the series finale was overlong, but the team were reluctant to cut it. The BBC just expanded its slot by five minutes...so that will mean a lot removed in the US if they are trying to make it fit a commercial hour. A shame: if the BBC considered the content too important to the story to cut, it suggests the cut-down version will struggle to explain the story sufficiently. A reference to the cut details (and explanation of their purpose) could be noted under "production".Gwinva 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First off (as Gwinva states above) there are no commercials when these episodes are shown on the BBC. As to your proposal your first problem is going to be that this will be considered original research as doing a scene by scene comparison can only done by original researching this topic and it will likely be deleted as such. Next the scenes cut by the Sci Fi channel are not always the same ones cut by BBC America further confusing the situation. Third, when I finally get to see the complete eps on DVD (or in the case of Torchwood in the On Demand part of my cable TV) the edits only occasionally cut out something vital to the story and often times it is just making snips to chase scenes etc. Now I know that each viewer will have different feelings about this and sometimes I really enjoy the scene that I didn't get to see on first viewing even if it is a small one, but a list that includes things like "edited section #4 - a five second scene of Jackie Tyler smiling as Rose leaves the room" is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly and isn't very encyclopedia. Now this is just my opinion but with the quick availability of the complete episodes by computer, On Demand and/or DVD this idea seems to entail a great deal of effort with very little return, especially if it is going to be deleted anyway. Apologies if this seems too negative but you need to be aware that there is a push from those that don't like the extensive coverage of individual episodes of TV series here at wikipedia to cut them way back and your proposal may only add fuel to the fire. If you have a big desire to know what is missing there might be one, or several, websites or blogs where this is listed. I think I remember reading here that there is even a Doctor Who wiki that has less restricitions on what is entered than wikipedia has so you may want to check there too. One other thing to be aware of in regards to the "Last of the Time Lords" episode is the fact that Sci Fi has shown the two Xmas specials in a 90 minute rather than 60 minute format so they may do that for this story. Also, one of the recent eps shown (though I don't remember which one) actually ran about 2 or 3 minutes beyond the top of the hour so we may not lose as much of this season finale as you think. MarnetteD | Talk 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So BBC America airs Torchwood cut, but has the uncut verson on BBC America OnDemand (not doubting you, I just want to confirm this)?

And minor stuff is one thing, but I remember the Dalek two parter had entire scenes cut out (this topic had some people giving examples of what stuff was cut out). As for the finale, someone there stated, "According to the Series Three Companion, it's already been decided that the series three finale will be substantially cutdown when shown on Sci-Fi." --DrBat 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I replied on your talk page I'll post it here for others to see - Yes On Demand is showing the uncut episodes of Torchwood beginning the Monday after the the Saturday airing of each episode. Be aware that they only offer each episode for four weeks before it drops off of the menu so don't put off seeing them for too long. My understanding is (though I don't remember where I read it) that series one of Torchwood will be released on DVD in January. I did not mean to imply that only minor stuff has been edited but it is also a bit POV for each fan whether they will consider it a major or minor cut. Actually they are all major to those of us that care about the show and that is part of the dilemma in that it becomes a bit fancrufty when we start tracking this stuff (again this is fine in other venues but a bit dodgy here at wikipedia). One other problem that I forsee is whether this would pass the notability test for wikiP. Since all programing on BBC America (except for the 25 minutes situation comedies which are aired in a 40 minute time slot) is edited for time singling out Doctor Who for tracking these cuts may raise the ire of the deletionistas that are out there. Thanks for your time and keep enjoying both programs. MarnetteD | Talk 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also a lot of overseas broadcasters have cut the series over the years - some might be notable like the Australian censor cuts because they ironically preserved the clips, but the vast majority of trims for timing are such that individual ones are not especially notable and listing them all could generate a HUGE work. Timrollpickering 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Trims like this are rather common on American television -- even American programs get cut when they're shown in post-first run syndication. It isn't noteworthy. DonQuixote 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the event of significant content being cut, a mention to that effect with a reference to a source that details the cut. futurehawk|talk 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.230.58 (talk)