Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 34

Should the Doctor Who Doctors image include John Hurt's War Doctor???

Since the BBC has now made his character canon as noted by Doctor Who News:

http://www.doctorwhonews.net/2013/11/john-hurt-doctor-line-up-picture-241113154317.html --

SGCommand (Talk to Me  · contribs  · 19:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

No it shouldn't, because it is an image of the successive stars of the show. John Hurt only guest-starred. Mezigue (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet, the BBC have INCLUDED him as an OFFICIAL Doctor SGCommand (Talk to Me  · contribs  · 20:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC))

So they have but he didn't STAR in the SHOW which is the POINT of this PICTURE TABLE on WIKIPEDIA. Mezigue (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul McGann never even appeared in the series, and only appeared in the TV movie. Should he not be included then, since he didn't star in the show? Ωphois 21:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The point of the picture table is to show the faces of the Doctor - John Hurt is now one of them. The entire point of the episode was that he was a "missing/forgotten" Doctor, and he has now become recognised again. [see the final shot, which he's in]. Of course he should be in. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to create an in-universe collage of Doctors, feel free to do so as long as you place it in the appropriate place. Please don't change this picture, which is constructed from a real-world perspective, to in-universe. DonQuixote (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The image is nothing to do with "in universe" or "out of universe" It is there to show "The faces of the Doctor in chronological order". Well John Hurt is a face of the Doctor. If you don't want to include a face of the Doctor, then change what the image says. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's weird, my IP address has suddenly changed. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I would says yes because it did show him as part of all the other Doctors at the end of the 50th anniversary episode and also before he left to back to his own time it was stated he is the Doctor by another Doctor, as well as him regenerating although I am not sure what triggered his regeneration. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In officially produced BBC material, we saw McGann regenerating into John Hurt (in Night), and then saw Hurt start regenerating into Eccleston (in Day), so he should appear between those two. Mabalu (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's absolutely true that he exists between those two Doctors, but you're confused about Wikipedia's perspective on matters like this. We will say in writing where he came in terms of the fiction, and in terms of real life casting, but we are not about presenting our articles are biographies of made-up people.Zythe (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not 'in universe' to show a picture of someone who played an official Doctor in the official TV series. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You have entirely misunderstood. Please reread the page I just linked. It's not about whether he's "official", which he is in terms of "canon", it's about representing that information so that it describes a real-world history of the show and not the fictional history of a fictional person called the Doctor. It would be misleading to suggest John Hurt was the lead actor of the series for a period of time between the TV movie and the 2005 revival. This is just how Wikipedia writes about fiction; the Doctor Who Wikia takes the approach you're looking for, if you're looking for that sort of resource. Zythe (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Except I'm not stating that you should "suggest John Hurt was the lead actor of the series" - the article makes it clear that he was not - I'm stating that he should be included in a picture that shows the faces of people who have played The Doctor. The "real-world history of the show" is that John Hurt has played the Doctor, and it would be misleading to leave out a face of the Doctor. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no rule that there can only be one picture. This picture is for series leads. Feel free to create a picture with every actor who has played the Doctor, which includes Hurndall and Hurt. DonQuixote (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Since when was the picture for series leads? - oh ye, since the 23rd when people made that up as an excuse. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Since in-universe and out-of-universe coincidentally stopped being the same, actually. I'm convinced none of you seem to understand the rule here. Read WP:INUNIVERSE. Wikipedia doesn't care about the Doctor's "true" fictional order. It only wants to represent to Joe Bloggs the history of the show as it happened, without overstating a one-episode Doctor's overall significance, or implying he came between McGann and Eccleston in real life, or between Smith and Capaldi as de jour Doctor for that matter. This is cut-and-dry.Zythe (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, it has always been about series leads, it's just that we didn't need to say that explicitly till now. DonQuixote (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not trying to argue that you should say "suggest John Hurt was the lead actor of the series" - he wasn't. but you SHOULD say that he played the character of the Doctor - because he did. "the history of the show as it happened" is that John Hurt has played an incarnation of the Doctor. How can you leave out part of the history? 188.223.5.95 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

We do say that he played the character. We say that several times in several articles. So, no, we're not leaving that part out. DonQuixote (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create an image of Michael Jayston, Toby Jones and John Hurt, to go nearby in the Lead actors section of Doctor Who, showing prominent guest actors to portray versions of the Doctor in the series? There is already a paragraph explaining the three of them, fully acknowledging John Hurt's place between 8 and 9.Zythe (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a great idea. DonQuixote (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you like some straw to go with that? The situations are completely different. John Hurt is an unambiguous incarnation of the Doctor - as recognised here - and that by the way is ALSO out of universe [containing info about first appearances, last appearances, character traits and such like]. The other two are not. Plus - where is The War Doctor dealt with? The main two mentions are his screen credit, and how he regenerated. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference for you is he is a "real" Doctor and the others aren't. Wikipedia makes no distinctions here. The difference for us is the rest are de jour Doctors (series leads), and the others are guest Doctors. (The link is Doctor Who#Lead actors.)Zythe (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

ah - we've been talking about two different things. I've been meaning the Doctor (Doctor Who) page. But either way, I don't see the problem in including Hurt. Someone already mentioned McGann above - from an immage you'd have no idea that he was Doctor for only one night - however words in the actual article can state that. Similarly with Hurt. the immage can show the faces of people who have played incarnations of the Doctor - words in the actual article can state how and/or when. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I did know which page you meant (my miscommunication here - sorry), but I was suggesting putting it there as well. My position is that just showing the "official" Doctors is treating him as a fictional person and "showing all his faces," when the perspective of the article should be "it's an acting role/figure in public consciousness" and "here's the main actors". But I don't think a workaround for this is beyond us! I think Hurt's picture should be incorporated in both articles somewhere, particularly as some informed and semi-informed readers may well wonder why he isn't. It's up to us as editors to make sure both problems are attended to. Getting the right caption might help. Zythe (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The last line there is sort of what I'm getting at. Reliable Sources (like here) now point to there being 12 incarnations - thus it doesn't make sense to only talk about 11. Particularly as time moves on, people will wonder why one is missing. I don't think there is anything wrong in talking about "incarnations". I wouldn't be against 'others' (eg Valeyard) in a different section - but I think there is a very clear difference backed up by sourses for them being treated differently to the main incarnations. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think as time goes on people are really going to cite John Hurt's Doctor as if he had been the main actor in the series. He will certainly come up in the context of retrospectives which discuss the 50th anniversary though! I get your idea but I'm having a hard time communicating mine to you I think. He is definitely, officially a real Doctor - no one disputes this. It's just that's not what the infobox is describing - the infobox is presenting to us the actors who led the show in the order that they did it. John Hurt is "real" and the Valeyard is less "real", but neither was "the Doctor" who was synonymous with th show for a period of however many years.Zythe (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you an example I've seen used previously on wiki. If wiki had been around in Planet of the spiders, there would have been a dispute with "renewal vs regeneration". With the passage of time, we can see it's regeneration. Here there is a dispute over Hurt because he is recent. But in future, what will people talk about? I've already showed that the Doctor Who site is talking about 12 Doctors. I don't think anyone is ever going to call him a "main star" - as I've said I'm not arguing that - but his incarnation IS going to get mentioned. because let's face it - if there are now 12, what does that make capaldi? Media were already talking about the 13 'limit' with Matt. As I said, I don't think it's in any way fanish to talk about "the main incarnations" - that's what everyone else will talk about. You don't have to make out Hurt was a star - as I said above in my comparison of McGann vs Hurt, an image tells you nothing about when they were the Doctor. You can have McGann in an image, and use the article to state that he was only Doctor for a night. You can have Hurt in the image, and use the article to say that he wasn't a "star", but was only revealed in the 50th. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No one's debating whether he is a real Doctor - of course he is. But he was never the series lead - he was never the Doctor at a time between two other actors in the role, for instance. McGann was the 'current' Doctor (albeit in only one production) for years and years and years; McCoy formally passed the role on to him, even, before Eccleston then assumed it. I say the other way around to you: don't include him in the image (which would suggest he was the main actor in the show for any period of time, when Smith was throughout) but DO explain carefully in the article who he was, where he fit, and the circumstances which led to his retroactive introduction. The way you suggest is basically exactly what the WP:INUNIVERSE guidelines say not to do.Zythe (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm convinced now that the table is for the main star of the show and agree, but am somewhat concerned at some of the interpretations of WP:INUNIVERSE that seem more reactionary than a genuine desire for quality. The War Doctor's position in the article isn't so clear cut.Rankersbo (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how putting Hurt in an image implies he was star of the show - especially given the wording I am talking about - and I do not agree that it is "in universe" to talk about the 12 incarnations. you can easily follow the example of Gandalf that the page mentions while doing that. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example on the 'simple wiki' - [1] - I'm not saying copy this exactly, but I think this is a good example of how to do it. Talk about the 'characterisation' of him being able to change appearance, and state who has played the different versions, and when. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not an either-or. We can talk about the character both in terms of in-universe continuity and in terms of real-world history of the programme. In-universe, he's the version of the character between the Eighth and the Ninth. Real-world, he's a charcter created for the 50th Anniversary special played by guest-star John Hurt. At present, both are already mentioned within the article. DonQuixote (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

you'll have to change eventually. in future people will ask why he's missing. may as well be now. 188.223.5.95 (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting fed up

I'm getting fed up trying to keep the WP:FANCRUFT and WP:OR out of articles, also trying to limit damage by bad edits. Some people just don't get it, like Contributer111 (talk · contribs) with this edit; 2.124.122.172 (talk) with this one or Mcs2050wiki (talk · contribs) with this all of which were the third or subsequent edits in opposition to mine. I don't see the point in wasting time on this any more. From now on, I'm just going to unwatch whenever somebody makes a straight revert without discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

this, three times and all the chopping and changing at Template:Regeneration stories by JohnSmith5000100 (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting quite fed up too. Editing articles about fiction so that they conform to WP:Writing about fiction is basically the main thing I do here. I'm familiar with the guidelines and I think I'm quite practiced now at turning articles around so they emphasise the right things. But it feels like I'm in an uphill struggle against a battallion of fans of the series who believe Wikipedia should be a compendium of fictional truths, and a squad of well-meaning but ultimately misinformed RfC interveners who don't understand the distinction between Official Lead Actor in the TV Series (which would include McGann), guest stars (like Hurt) and characters in alternative concurrent productions (like Cushing). I just want to present the history of the show in the least misleading way possible and feel utterly frustrated because it feels like only a small handful of increasingly browbeaten level-headed editors have a clear understanding of how to write about the what goes on in the fiction of the show in terms of its real world history.Zythe (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I identify with all you both write here but do you actually mean "unwatch", Redrose? I would have to say "revert" in my case.
Even the registered-users-only does not help. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No I mean unwatch: if I keep reverting I will hit WP:3RR in no time. Besides the John Hurt stuff (above), this is the sort of thing that's clogged my watchlist since Saturday. Should "Louise" be there? Or not? What does "affiliated" mean? Did the Fourth Doctor appear in "The Day of the Doctor"? Or was it The Curator? Or a mysterious character who happened to be played by Tom Baker? Did David Bradley play the First Doctor - or did he play William Hartnell - or was it David Bradley playing William Hartnell playing the First Doctor? Does a photo of a character from 1965 pinned to a noticeboard count as an "appearance" of that character?

WP:Real world should be applied throughout, but far too often I come across WP:INUNIVERSE "facts". If I revert as "unsourced", or add a {{cn}}, or message the perp asking for sources, whatever I do I'm reverted with "it's in the commentary/infotext" or "watch the bloody episode you idiot - are you blind?" or something equally objectionable. So, if I unwatch the pages, I don't have to see that Wikipedia is turning into a fansite. I'm going to draw a line at 6 December 1989. Yesterday I listened to The Smugglers on audio CD. Today I'm watching The Tenth Planet on DVD. Tomorrow, or the day after, The Power of the Daleks CD. But you can bet your ass that I won't be stuffing the articles with so-called "continuity" and other trivia. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I've read the opposite side of this, people bemoaning that Wikipedia is populated by rules obsessed "nerds" who obsess over rules, policies and styleguides. While I think those people are wrong about the "truth" they wish wikipedia to reflect, I think we have to remember WP:NOTBUREAU and relax about the small stuff. Rankersbo (talk)

Funny, because in my mind I felt there was a horde of Doctor Who fans (nerds) who couldn't stand the idea of Wikipedia not acknowledging the integrity of their fictional world. It's not small stuff, it's about the ambition for these articles to be Good Articles or Featured Articles one day!Zythe (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, er, yes the irony hadn't escaped me, hence the use of quotation marks round nerds. It's good to be seeking GA status, but if you end up in a siege mentality you'll just burn yourself out and end up making things worse. Rankersbo (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I think after this ossifies the right way, a good Wikibreak may be in order.Zythe (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Redrose, for what it's worth, you're one of the better-than-me Wikipedia editors who keep me in line, and I have to say thanks for that. And, also, thanks to Zythe and everyone else! DonQuixote (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So, all these frustrating debates where people protest endlessly that Hurt is an official Doctor and was also billed like any other cast member in TDOTD. I feel like they're going in circles. How do we bring them to an end?Zythe (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Time War

The article Time War (Doctor Who) is an in-universe monstruosity. Now there is also a section in the Story arcs in Doctor Who article which is badly written and incomplete. I would suggest that one needs fixing and the other deleting. Not sure which! Thoughts? Mezigue (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Both pages are a mess. The section in Story arcs in Doctor Who isn't like the others on that page (seasonal arcs). That whole article originated from a Bad Wolf AFD back in 2005/6m, I believe. I posted on the talk page that it had prompted me to think the whole article should be put for AFD. It's a terrible article (which I contributed a lot to myself before I knew better) and I'm not sure it's saveable. Even if you found references to story arcs in reviews and academic literature, you'd have a hard time cobbling together something other than an indiscriminate list. Story arcs obviously exist at every level - over a few episodes, over scattered character appearances, over settings, over years, over decades.

As for the Time War article — my feeling is it's useful to prevent unnecessary plot dump everywhere, especially as it doesn't specifically fit into the plot story of a particular Doctor, season or episode. Because it was such a clever little plot device, and has attracted a lot of commentary, I think a drastic overhaul (essentially, deleting and start again) could earn a GA or FA if someone is willing to go hunting for sources.Zythe (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, from a notability standpoint, you can probably justify the Story Arc page, as , at least as my memory recalls, there were plenty of RSs in mainstream media questioning what "Bad Wolf" meant, and started scanning every subsequent series for arc words. Mind you, you can also arguably put these on the individual season/series pages as a theme for that series (eg Bad Wolf as a concept can be described in broad terms at Doctor_Who_(series_1)). This would also apply to the Key to Time and Trial of a Timelord arcs to their respect seasons. Most of the other "arcs" though are clearly original research or attempts to classify them (like the Fenric arc). So I would consider it reasonable to dismantle the story arc article in favor of discussing the arcs on the individual series/season pages. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea, now that we have individual series/season articles to put them in. DonQuixote (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. How do we erase the story arcs page? Would we have to go to AfD, or could we put a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials and correct all the subredirects like Bad Wolf to the correct seasons?Zythe (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not really confident about an AfD, as I remember the attempts to get the hideous chronology article deleted was rebuffed with "but it can be fixed!". Sceptre ^(talk) 04:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete's not going to work because of attribution issues (And history merge doesn't make sense). It is best to consider redirecting the story arc page to the main show page (so we keep the history) and then when the various parted are movied around, there's "copied from/to" templates to help direct editors to the original page to follow attribution. So to do a redirect, there's no hard, formal process, but just a matter of getting a conseneus to do so. You could place merge-to/-from tags on affected pages to alert and have a discussion before doing so, but BRD also applies. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I know the story arc page is linked to mostly to further explain the references when they come up in plot sections, etc, and some of that would be lost if it's redirected. There certainly would be real-world production information for why the writers did what they did. Glimmer721 ^talk

Since most of the story arcs are the context of one season , this production information along with the in-universe summary of the arc can be explained on those season/series pages. Redirects can be used for other arc words like Bad Wolf and Vote Saxon. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

DVD references

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could tell me with regard to referencing Region 1 Doctor Who DVD's if we take tvshowsondvd.com as a reference does it have to be referenced to the storys page or can you use multiple referncing if all releases are listed one page. see here http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/shows/Doctor/4939 I am just trying to speed up the referencing because by the time it all finished most will most likley be dead links and we wont be able to get it as a feautured list Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Jo Grant for GA?

Just noticed again that the Jo Grant article is pretty excellent - credit I think mostly goes to Eshlare (talk · contribs). I can't see what else it needs. Should someone perhaps put it up for assessment to become a Good Article?Zythe (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sold on the in-universe component. Not sure the Television Appearances section meets the guidelines and similarly I don't think the Other Media section is as comprehensive as it could be which is why I held off. Maybe I was being too critical though. Eshlare (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

uploaded new title image The Time of the Doctor

I seem to be having a problem with making the proper episode image appear in The Time of the Doctor. It still shows the previous image but I uploaded a new one with the episode title in it. NorthernThunder (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If an image is re-uploaded, it's not necessarily propagated through to the articles immediately. Furthermore, since the new image filename is identical to the old, your browser may have cached the old version and be redisplaying that, not realising that there has been a change to the image content. Try each of the following, in this order, until one succeeds: (i) bypass your browser cache; (ii) purge the page - for convenience, here's the purge link for that article; (iii) make a null edit to The Time of the Doctor. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Affiliated Explanation

Could someone please explain to me just what is considered to be "affiliated" for character articles? It doesn't seem to be applied equally, from what I can tell. For example, Jo Grant and Sarah Jane Smith are considered to be affiliated with the Eleventh Doctor just for appearing in one episode with him, but Clara Oswald is not considered affiliated with Tenth Doctor or the War Doctor. Thanks. Ωphois 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's where battles get fought and people pick their battles. Truthfully, Sarah Jane should only list 3/4/10/K-9/Unit. It's for organisational memberships and companion relationships. It's an in-universe label for expressing something with an out of of universe meaning = i.e. what period of the show are they affiliated with, and what are the other salient facts about the character such as UNIT or Torchwood membership?Zythe (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulation to everyone who has made Doctor Who Episodes GA/FA

Congratulation to everyone who has made Doctor Who Episodes a Good article or a feature article. Hopefully the good work will continue. Below is a breakdown of episode articles.

Series 1
Rose
The End of the World
The Unquiet Dead
Aliens of London
World War Three
Dalek
The Long Game
Father's Day
The Empty Child
The Doctor Dances
Boom Town
Bad Wolf
The Parting of the Ways

Specials
Doctor Who: Children in Need
The Christmas Invasion

Series 2
New Earth

Tooth and Claw
School Reunion
The Girl in the Fireplace
Rise of the Cybermen
The Age of Steel
The Idiot's Lantern
The Impossible Planet
The Satan Pit
Love & Monsters
Fear Her
Army of Ghosts
Doomsday

Specials
The Runaway Bride

Series 3
Smith and Jones
The Shakespeare Code (original Research Tag)
Gridlock (Doctor Who)
Daleks in Manhattan
Evolution of the Daleks
The Lazarus Experiment
42
Human Nature
The Family of Blood
Blink
Utopia
The Sound of Drums
Last of the Time Lords

Specials
Time Crash
Voyage of the Damned

Series 4
Partners in Crime
The Fires of Pompeii
Planet of the Ood
The Sontaran Stratagem
The Poison Sky
The Doctor's Daughter
The Unicorn and the Wasp
Silence in the Library
Forest of the Dead
Midnight
Turn Left
The Stolen Earth
Journey's End (Doctor Who)

Specials
The Next Doctor
Planet of the Dead
The Waters of Mars
The End of Time

Series 5
The Eleventh Hour
The Beast Below
Victory of the Daleks
The Time of Angels
Flesh and Stone
The Vampires of Venice
Amy's Choice
The Hungry Earth
Cold Blood
Vincent and the Doctor
The Lodger
The Pandorica Opens
The Big Bang

Specials
A Christmas Carol
Space / Time

Series 6
The Impossible Astronaut
Day of the Moon
The Curse of the Black Spot
The Doctor's Wife
The Rebel Flesh
The Almost People
A Good Man Goes to War
Let's Kill Hitler
Night Terrors
The Girl Who Waited
The God Complex
Closing Time
The Wedding of River Song

Specials
The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe
Pond Life

Series 7 Part 1
Asylum of the Daleks
Dinosaurs on a Spaceship
A Town Called Mercy
The Power of Three
The Angels Take Manhattan

Specials
The Snowmen

Series 7 Part 2
The Bells of Saint John
The Rings of Akhaten
Cold War
Hide
Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS
The Crimson Horror
Nightmare in Silver
The Name of the Doctor

Specials
The Night of the Doctor
The Last Day
The Day of the Doctor

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I also have this broken down with cool achievement bars at User:Glimmer721/DoctorWho and User:Glimmer721/ClassicWho (though the latter doesn't have cool achievement bars because, well, it's kind of improbable at the moment). Glimmer721 ^talk 00:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, in the classic series we have

• Genesis of the Daleks
• Enlightenment
• City of Death

The Rescue is currently at GAN and I'm working on Remembrance of the Daleks. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I must commend Glimmer721 on your break down pages they are brilliant. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I must say I'm shocked and disappointed that more classic stories aren't GA yet. I do possess a significant collection of resource materials for reference, including some of the novelizations, meta-literature, most of the DWM issues through #150, all the Region 1 DVD releases, and assorted other materials. If there is specific information needed, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to do what I can. I'd like to see at least one story per Doctor reach GA, and am willing to help with research as I am able. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Series 5 is also a featured topic. Series 6 could also become one. This is really good work from everyone involved. –anemoneprojectors– 23:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes no longer have Doctor numbers

I only noticed today that the navboxes have seemingly all had the Doctor groupings removed, so that all the episodes appear in one section. I agreed with the notion of splitting minor and major appearances because hearing a Dalek's voice doesn't really count as an appearance, but I wondered why the decision was taken to remove the different Doctors (can't find the discussion here) as I think it could result in some of the more popular characters' navboxes becoming large & unwieldy. Tony2Times (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Several of the navboxes have had a greater or lesser degree of back-and-forth editing, in contravention of WP:BRD. One example is {{regeneration stories}}, see Template talk:Regeneration stories#To clear up formatting, what about something like this?. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing Believed Wiped - BFI announcement

Dick Fiddy of the BFI has apparently announced at the Missing Believed Wiped event this evening that Philip Morris has returned over 10000 reels of film from Zambia (see here and here). Until there is any official confirmation of what it consists (which will take some time) people should be on the look out for changes based on speculation. I expect there to be a lot of speculation. I think it might be a good idea to protect a few important articles like Doctor Who missing episodes and some of the articles for the serials with missing episodes.

good news though => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It'll be EastEnders or some other modern trash that the BBC already hold. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It actually turns out to be more rumourmongering [2] => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 23:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In-universe numbering source

Hello. This is not truly a big problem for us, as the vast majority of WP:RS and other sources have taken to maintaining Moffat's preference for continuing to call Eccleston Nine, Tennant Ten, Smith Eleven and so on. An exception to this is the Mirror, which like a punctilious fanboy insists on referring to Smith as the Thirteenth Doctor. If ever it was needed however, here is clearly an in-universe source in the form of Strax's field report on the Doctors which counts "Eighth Doctor, Warrior, Ninth Doctor, Tenth Doctor, Eleventh Doctor" — using those titles as names. It's a fairly good confirmation from the production crew of Moffat's stated intention of not affecting the numberings.Zythe (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. The BBC website hasn't changed anything at all. I really hope the commotion eventually dies down...I took it not as a major change and that whatever actual incarnation they are, they still retain the names of Ten, Eleven, etc. Plus it was made clear that the War Doctor is not worthy of the "Doctor" title. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "Day" confused it by having him become redeemed and worthy of the Doctor title in the end, but this doesn't change that he wasn't known as the Doctor. In "Time," Eleven clarifies that though he is Eleven, "Number Ten" (confirmed name) used two regenerations, and though War "didn't go by the name Doctor," his regeneration counted. I'm happy accepting that the "Eleventh Doctor" is the "twelfth incarnation" of the Doctor, and that the Twelfth Doctor is the thirteenth incarnation and the product of a thirteenth regeneration. It's just way confusing, for anyone, especially as a lot of these words have been used as synonyms before now.Zythe (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely then, it's also confirmation that he counts as a face of the Doctor, and should be in the image. 94.193.96.26 (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Reread the discussion, no one was ever saying he wasn't a legitimate incarnation within the fiction. It's about the real world status as the show's lead actor.Zythe (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:UCN is to use the most common, recognisable name, and says "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." If in one year, over half of published reliable sources refer to the Matt Smith portrayal as either "the twelfth Doctor" or "the thirteenth Doctor" rather than the eleventh, then we should consider changing. But that is very unlikely, and Steven Moffat has now provided two good story reasons for that never to happen (the more recent one being that the Tennant portrayal would be arguably both the eleventh and twelfth.) So there seems to be consensus that the Mirror headline [3] was a understandable misinterpretation of Moffat's tease, and will have little influence. Since the Christmas broadcast Radio Times first confusingly referred to "13th incarnation Peter Capaldi" [4]. Fortunately then TIME welcomed "the era of Peter Capaldi as the Twelfth Doctor"[5] and CNN [6] said "Peter Capaldi is now the Twelfth Doctor", and the Independent refers to "Peter Capaldi's twelfth Doctor" [7] --Cedders^tk 11:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Re-assessment, TARDIS, etc

I hope this is the right place to raise my following points:

1. I notice that "TARDIS" is rated top-importance and was in 2006 a featured article on the main page, but has since been assessed as C-class. I assume this is because well-meaning edits based mainly on new episodes have added excessive in-universe detail and disturbed the flow and structure of the text, and then various editors including me have tried incremental cleanups. Some editors may have retired. Is it due for reassessment, and could experts add improvement suggestions on the talk page? I'm wondering whether to attempt a complete rewrite. The "In popular culture" section gets rationalised and then accretes even more trivial examples from comics, so could probably be restructured as a "cultural influence" section. Is there a recommended way of translating in-universe text into better encyclopaedia style? At a minimum, years of broadcast helps readers understand the programme's development. Present tense seems to be standard in WP examples. One problem is that a lot of reference material (which I don't collect) is itself in in-universe style. There are recent DWM "Fact of Fiction" articles and the Matthew Sweet stuff on CE Webber.
2. The article on Peter Capaldi has been assessed as "top-importance", although in line with previous assessment policy, other leading actors are mostly "Med" importance.
3. I recreated "Christopher Bailey (screenwriter)" a month ago. If anyone has any sourced biodata, please add.
4. The project page says "Story titles, like the television stories, should be italicised" and I think that may confuse people. MOS:T contains a reminder of normal English usage: place quotation marks (inverted commas) around short forms, including episodes and published stories that are part of longer works (for example in Short Trips); use italics for longer forms, collections, anthologies, novels, multi-episode serials. I'm assuming it's OK to clarify. --Cedders^tk 11:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be anything of "Med" importance - the {{WikiProject Doctor Who}} banner (like most WikiProject banners) is set up to recognise |importance=mid (the value is case insensitive so |importance=Mid is also permitted). If you use |importance=Med it's counted as Unassessed. Anyway, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Assessment#Importance scale shows "lead characters" (not "lead actors") against Top, but "Doctor actors" against Mid, so I've reassessed Talk:Peter Capaldi. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

As for commas, a lot of material (like DWM) puts italics around all stories; however, we subscribe to MOS and only use them for serials, while the new series episodes are in quotes. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Torchwood Good Article Nomination

Torchwood is currently under review for a good article if anyone has time please feel free to contribute Talk:Torchwood/GA3 Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Last appearance" for Doctors - perhaps we should alter the bespoke infobox?

So, if you look at "Tenth Doctor" it currently lists two last appearances, The End of Time (regular) and "The Day of the Doctor" (guest). This is fairly standard for past Doctors who have made subsequent appearances. I think infoboxes should be cleaner and more specific, and discourage all kinds of qualification using brackets - because information that needs excessive qualification is not suitable to the "at-a-glance" function of the infobox.

How would this suit, as an alternative?

Debut episode: "The Parting of the Ways" (2005)

Exit episode: The End of Time (2010)

Most recent appearance<!--Only if different from then above-->: "The Day of the Doctor" (2013)

As the "tenure" of the Doctor is quite an important feature of the show. I'm not sure how best to phrase the last one, as characters in fiction don't tend to actually have "final" appearances, which is why I also strongly advocate leaving it blank for characters whose actors haven't died etc..Zythe (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would go with First Regular Appearance and Last Regular Appearance. It is a good idea to change it as there is endless conflict over how it is at the moment. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I like, but I think it should be First appearance and Last regular appearance. The reason for this is because there will inevitably be debate over what constitutes their first regular appearance - e.g. for Ten whether it's "The Parting of the Ways", "Children in Need" or "The Christmas Invasion", or for Twelve whether it's "The Day of the Doctor", "The Time of the Doctor" or the series 8 premiere. "First" without qualification has the same effect as the qualified "Last regular..." - it makes it certain and stable. Are people happy to go ahead and alter the template?

The only other worry is it wouldn't quite work for War Doctor, who didn't have a defined tenure, so we might need an alternative "Last" which encompasses his last appearance and any reprisals?Zythe (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: "First Appearance", without qualification, for Peter Capaldi's Doctor would be "The Day of the Doctor", even though his first regular appearance would be in "The Night of the Doctor" following Matt Smith's regeneration. Just raising the issue, as I'm not sure how much conflict would remain if we had "first appearance" wihtout qualification. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Sutton, youngest female companion actor

Just for future reference to people who keep deleting it, Sarah Sutton was born in December 1961. Her first story The Keeper of Traken began filming in late 1980 when Sarah was still 18 and thus younger than Deborah Watling (who was 19 when The Evil of the Daleks began filming). Paul Austin (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The War Games

At The War Games#Production there is disagreement over what is supported by the ref and what isn't. 122.61.129.5 (talk) has something of a history of unsourced/OR edits. I've reverted twice in 2 days and it's past my bedtime. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'minor' appearance

I am given the third degree over at Template talk:Dalek stories#Categorisation of "The Pandorica Opens". More input is requested. — Edokter (talk) — 22:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, surely only the second degree, if that. Degrees aside, I concur that project input regarding this matter would be gratefully received by, I imagine, all concerned. Thank you. 86.167.164.106 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Death Is the Only Answer": merge?

Please see notability discussion at Talk:Death Is the Only Answer/GA1. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Image removal(s)

My watchlist shows that the image of the book cover for An Unearthly Child has been removed. I don't know if this is a one off or a trend. IMO it would be a shame to lose those images but the Byzantine rules regarding pix are a mystery to me so I am posting this so that those of you who do understand them can see if this one can be rescued and the others can be protected. MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 27#File:Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child.jpg. It was the same with the book cover at The Daleks, see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 24#File:Doctor Who and the Daleks.jpg. FFDs take months to go through, unlike AFDs which rarely take more than 1-3 weeks. AFAIK those were the only two Target book covers being discussed; but some screenshots are/were as well, see for example WP:NFCR#An Unearthly Child. Other DW-related discussions that are still open include WP:NFCR#Multiple files in Regeneration (Doctor Who).

If you put Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts on your watchlist, and the File talk: pages bear a {{WikiProject Doctor Who}}, you should find out about FFDs within 24 hours of their being raised. However, Article Alerts won't help in the case of NFCRs, for which you really need to have WP:NFCR itself watchlisted. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Tomb of the Cybermen.jpg was tagged {{di-no fair use rationale|date=8 February 2014}} at 13:43, 8 February 2014 and was deleted at 15:50 today (i.e. 12 days later); although it had a {{WikiProject Doctor Who}} on its talk page, it didn't show in Article alerts - presumably because speedy deletes aren't listed there. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking from the NFC side, cover art for a work can only be used if the work itself has a standalone article or significantly discussed (more than just its mere existence) - in which case the cover is helping to identify the work in conjunction with commentary about that work - or if the cover itself is the subject of critical commentary. In most of the DW novelizations I've seen on series pages, the book is only described as existing (who wrote it, when it was released, it's ISBN, etc.) so the book covers are considered inappropriate use. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that misses a key point, which I made at the WP:NFCR discussion, that in most cases these covers represented the defining images for the stories, for anything up to two decades. As I wrote there,

The original Doctor Who stories were typically broadcast once, and then never shown again -- at least not in their original country of origin. For a long time the books were the only forms in which stories the were accessible, and so the covers of the books became defining images associated with those stories.

That is exactly the criterion -- a defining image for the work, for a significant period of time, in a significant market for it -- that is used to test whether alternate record album covers are justified; and the same logic applies here.

The question we are asked to determine is whether the cover is something that adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic. The status of the cover as the single image most associated with the work during that period means that it is significant to the topic, and our coverage of the topic would be significantly weakened without it.

You replied that "... The alternate art aspect for albums is different because that is when there are two simultaneous covers that provide roughly equivalent identification."

But that is not the case: the actual guidance relating to NFCC #3 for album art is

An alternate cover that is significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion.

-- recognising the significance of images that at different historical times were the defining identifiers of the topic. In fact, across the board, we specifically preferentially show early defining images in cases such as cover art rather than the most recent images, because we consider those add something valuable to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

Master (Doctor Who)

This article is a wreck. It is rife with speculation, poor grammar, and has almost no sources (only sixteen). This is extremely unfortunate, since the Master is one of Doctor Who's most iconic villains. Each time a reader with an interest in Doctor Who reads this article, they will come away with a bad image of Wikipedia.

I have tried to make a few beneficial changes to the article, but there are so many problems that what the page needs is a major overhaul. Perhaps if everyone who frequently contributes to Doctor Who-related articles were to head over there and work on improving it, we could get it whipped into shape. In the meantime, I'll continue working on it. G S Palmer (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Too overwhelmed to work right now, especially on something like that, but I say the whole companions section should be axed. It doesn't add anything. The fact that the Master doesn't have companions doesn't even need to be stated. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Janet Fielding is getting younger

Is this a correction or vandalism or what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to

• Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark (1996) [1995]. Doctor Who: Companions. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 123. ISBN 0-86369-921-9.

Janet Fielding was born in 1957. What the source in the article says I don't know, because my browser throws an error "Secure Connection Failed An error occurred during a connection to www.jordanwatch.co.uk. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length. (Error code: ssl_error_rx_record_too_long) The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem. Alternatively, use the command found in the help menu to report this broken site." (presumably concerning SSL encryption) when I click it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried removing the https: from the url and I got to Direct Company listing for a Ms Janet Claire Fielding, an Australian to lives/lived in London and a DOB of 9 September 1953. (She as resigned as director of Gordon & French Ltd, so the address could be out-of-date.) Edgepedia (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This may be a case of the sources using different information. I seem to recall both Fielding and JNT telling the story of how she brought an immigration form to him to sign as employer with her date of birth in pencil. Later he received a copy of the stamped form with the date erased and a different one in ink, revealing she was a bit older than she claimed. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's a good-faith amendment, see my WP:OR at Talk:Janet Fielding#Date of birth. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse

This article until recently (see this version) contained a broad overview of the DW universe, sourced from the show and Confidential, but largely synthetic, and preceded by some considerations about the history and usage of the word itself. There was also some stuff about the show's lack of continuity and relation to all the spin-off media. An unregistered editor has removed the main part entirely as unsourced and is rewriting the rest, very poorly in my opinion and that of another editor. As a result an edit war has broken out. As a bit of background, there was a deletion proposal way back in 2006, in which it was decided to keep it on grounds that the word has notability. However, an acceptable article about it has not been written in all that time and my suspicion is that you cannot really write an article on that sort of topic that isn't largely synthetic. Soooo if anyone thinks otherwise, I invite them to direct their attention or efforts to it. Otherwise, I am tempted to suggest that it be redirected to a new, and short section at Doctor Who, or else turned into a list of links to the various aspects of the "Whoniverse" that have an article. Mezigue (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What we could use is some publications that use the word "whoniverse". For reasons I don't care to go into, I am currently unable to access my collection of books - save the Discontinuity Guide - which might have the word in the text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

More at Talk:Whoniverse#Certain anachronisms (and most subsequent threads), WP:AN/EW#User:41.132.179.212 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Both users warned), User talk:Edokter#Whoniverse and User talk:Edokter#Whoniverse (2). Possibly elsewhere too - Edokter (talk · contribs) might know. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That about sums it up. — Edokter (talk) — 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mission to the Unknown production code

It's kicking off again. See Talk:List of Doctor Who serials/Archive 11#Requested change and these recent edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who title 1973-1980.jpg

I've sent File:Doctor Who title 1973-1980.jpg to WP:NFCR. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Madame Vastra, Jenny Flint and Strax

There's been a big addition of material to this article. I deleted a portion of it that seemed like clearly OR but I'd like to ask editors who frequently edit DW articles to look it over and see if it complies with WP standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested change of redirects

I would like to suggest that two redirect pages, Shadow Proclamation and The Shadow Proclamation, which currently link to Whoniverse, be instead redirected to Judoon, since the article that they currently direct people to has no mention of the Shadow Proclamation due to the extensive rewrites it has recently undergone. If no one replies to this message, I'm going to be bold and change it myself. G S Palmer (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move of List of Doctor Who serials by setting

This page now includes episodes of Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures, and K-9 (TV series). By the same logic that List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens was moved to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, this page should be moved to List of Doctor Who universe serials by setting. G S Palmer (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested at Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_serials_by_setting#Suitable_for_Wikipedia.3F, the article seems to me to have no place within Wikipedia and should be deleted or heavily re-worked. The precise name is the least of its problems. Bondegezou (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A fair bit of content does seem to go beyond on-screen declaration of time and place for each story into a form of synthesis. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

All I was saying (beyond commenting on it's appropriateness for Wikipedia or lack thereof) is that in the meantime it should be moved. So if there aren't any objections, I'll do that and leave you to decide it's fate. G S Palmer (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could inquire as to whether the editors over at Tardis Data Core would be interested in receiving it via a transwiki. Then again, they might already have the article. G S Palmer (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou is right. That whole article is pure SYNTHESIS and OR. 41.135.172.4 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to AfD it and let the discussion happen there. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD is a good idea. We can properly explore if 1) an article is warranted (GNG and all that) and 2) the scope of the content. [Perhaps a broadcast order list with setting date approaches from the topic from a real-world perspective] GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

i'd support it's deletion as it's been an embarrassment to the encyclopaedia for five or six years, but as it's "fixable", AfD won't get rid of it. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, why doesn't somebody send it to AfD then? G S Palmer (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who serials by setting. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

G S Palmer, perhaps you can wait for the AfD process to be resolved before moving the article (if there is then still an article to be moved). Bondegezou (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. (And right now, it appears that there won't be an article.) G S Palmer (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Who!

The usage of Dr. Who! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Is The Discontinuity Guide Notable?

The Discontinuity Guide has been tagged as being potentially not notable. Having looked at the notability criteria for books (WP:NBOOK) I'm tempted to agree. While it passes the threshold criteria it struggles to pass any of the others. Is there any other notability criteria or does it belong in WP:AfD? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

also asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Is The Discontinuity Guide Notable?. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NBOOK states that it is a particular application of the the general notability guide (GNG) - if the Reliable Sources aren't there then they aren't. Famous within fandom, and mentioned by other works in passing won't be sufficient. Personally I doubt it would have much of a chance against an AfD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD'd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Discontinuity_Guide) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Tipple, again...

Anyone who wants to contribute to/discuss the re-creation of Gordon Tipple is welcome to. It seems to be a long-running problem as to whether he is notable or not. G S Palmer (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Planet of the Daleks episode 3

Redrose64 is disputing on my Talk page the observation on Planet of the Daleks that the 1993 repeat on BBC1 was the first screening of a b/w Dr Who episode on that channel since 1969 (all other repeats being colour, with b/w repeats only on BBC2). I have referred to the Gallifrey Base list of BBC repeats, which they are discounted as original research, although have failed to identify an errors or omissions in that page (and a similar one). Nick Cooper (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Redrose64: those don't appear to be reliable sources. However, it does seem plausible that your assertation may be true - you'll just have to find a better source. G S Palmer (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not my assertion, it was added previously by another editor. For it to be implausible someone would have to identify a b/w story/episode shown on BBC1 between 1969 and 1993. There isn't one. Really it's no more original research than adding up the number of episodes in a season. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is original research if you cannot provide a reliable source for the list of colour and b/w repeats on BBC1 (or a source that explicitly stated the assertion). If you had that source then you could include it. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The GB page shows the BBC repeats. The only b/w titles in the range in question are An Unearthly Child, The Krotons, the Pilot Episode, The Time Meddler, and The Mind Robber - all shown on BBC2. This is a simple factual deduction, not an attempt at subjective interpretation, so not "original research." GB appears to be an acceptable source for quite a number of Wikipedia pages, so I'm at a loss as to why it's deemed not in this case. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it important/relevant ie encylopaedic content as opposed to a footnote/triva? The B&W showing was of necessity; was there a BBC policy not to show B&W that it flew in the face of? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

BBC1 showing anything in b/w in primetime was - and still is - virtually unheard of. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And? We need secondary sources saying that this is anything near noteworthy. DonQuixote (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If we're going through all the pedantry "the only time since June 1969 that a Doctor Who episode has been broadcast in black and white on BBC One" is actually technically untrue. The series was simultaneously broadcast in b/w on BBC1 until 1985 - the "625/colour switchover" took rather longer than digital a quarter of a century later. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of (Bernice Summerfield) dabs

Hi, I don't have a great opinion on this, I'm assuming it's been discussed here at this Project and that's fine, but I just noticed that The Tree of Life (Bernice Summerfield) had been moved to The Tree of Life (novel). I've reverted it and redirected the (novel) to the Tree of Life dab page where two novels - one a major Jewish holocaust novel - should have been linked to their author pages. They weren't, they are now. Can someone please run a check on similar moves. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Should Doctor Who TV be included in the list of useful websites?

I have recently noticed that this website has been being used quite a bit as a source in Doctor Who (series 8). Should it be included in the list of useful reference websites on the project page? Any thoughts? G S Palmer (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Episodes found that are already in the archive

Hi everyone I am not sure if this is a good idea for this article but I would like to suggest having a new section about episodes recoveries that have turned out to be episode already in the BBC's Archive (could name in somthing like recovery of duplicate episodes) for example the Ian Levine recovery December 2013 in Taiwan see links Link 1 Link 2 I am not sure if its notable to metion any of this but theoryically some duplicate episode could be better quality than the orginal if was damaged. Please tell me what you think. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Doctor Who At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Who (song)

The usage of Dr. Who (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, where Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) has been requested to be renamed to "Dr. Who (song)". For the discussion, see talk: Dr. Who! (Tujamo and Plastik Funk song) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't we just cover this? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Songs constantly show up for renaming all the time. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, well, it seems a bit early to be covering this again, as most of the editors in the discussion have noted. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps so, I think so too; but the nominators for the two proposals are different. WPDRWHO might want to keep track of the various spellings for "Doctor Who song" in some watchlist. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Discontinuity Guide

I've put a stop to the increasingly heated edit warring at The Discontinuity Guide. Other eyes may be required at Talk:The Discontinuity Guide#Pushing opinions. Mostly it's two people; I've made myself involved. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Project Nirvana

Hello, I have added {{unreferenced}} to Project Nirvana. This article is listed as part of this WikiProject, so perhaps editors can help to determine whether this set of audiobooks is notable. Or should it be nominated for discussion? I hope I can leave this in the hands of project members to determine. PNGWantok (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Skilleter PROD

Just letting people know that Andrew Skilleter has been proposed for deletion (NOT by me) in case anyone wants to try and save it. Nice of them to let the relevant project know(!) Mabalu (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If the article's talk page had borne the {{WikiProject Doctor Who}} banner, the article would have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts. But it didn't, so it wasn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The original author was notified. But to merge it to list of novelisations the day after nomination goes against the mechanism of PROD which is a seven day delay. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Coal Hill School on AfD

Just a heads-up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal Hill School. I've done some work on the article since the AfD began; you can judge for yourselves whether it is enough to keep the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Quote tags and DISPLAYTITLE

Is the use of the <q></q> tags in episode titles generally accepted now? And if so, should we begin converting the titles for the rest of the new series? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: The q element - or the <q>...</q> tags if you like - are used to mark up "phrasing content quoted from another source". Where are you seeing it being used in {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}?

BTW {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} is not a template, it is a Behaviour switch. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thanks for clarifying the nature of DISPLAYTITLE. In answer to your question, all the episodes of series 8 have used the tags after Edokter used them on "Deep Breath" as part of a test for Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 47#Quotation marks in article titles using <q> tag. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just visited Deep Breath (Doctor Who), copied the article title and pasted it here →"Deep Breath" (Doctor Who)← it displays quotemarks, which are copypasteable, and so it goes against WP:DISPLAYTITLE "the displayed title must still resolve to the true name of the page (i.e. if the displayed title is copied and pasted into a wikilink, the link should point to the original page)". Edokter, where was the consensus to use <q>...</q> in {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}? If there was none, please demonstrate how the article Deep Breath (Doctor Who) meets the criteria for a non-standard title format, as detailed in the Article titles policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy regarding the use of <q> in titles. Now that the tag is allowed, it allows you to display the quotes without actually changing the text of the title. I pioneered "Deep Breath" for testing and started the discussion linked above. Not a lot of response, but it warrants discuission; that is why I'm leaving it. If you get the quotes while copying, your browser is broken (only IE does this). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I use Internet Explorer also, and ran into the same problem. However, Edokter pointed out that you can always copy from the address bar instead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I use Firefox 32, and it copies the quotes. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reading the archived discussion, it doesn't appear there's a clear consensus for the usage of the quotation marks. I'd firmly agree with those against this idea. It's complicating something unnecessarily. Matthew (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Radio Times posters

Just a feeler: for Series 7, we used the BBC promotional posters for the infobox images. This series, it doesn't appear the BBC are doing so, instead delegating to the Radio Times. How does everyone feel about using them instead of screenshots? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I haven't seen any of these posters - could you give us a link to them? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just searched them - do you mean this, this, this, and this? I guess those could work. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those are what I was thinking of. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we'd be on solid copyright ground using those. The BBC promotional posters are licensed as {{non-free promotional}}, but the Radio Times posters are created by Stuart Manning "exclusively for Radio Times". They're promotional, yes, but they haven't been released by the company which owns the copyright for Doctor Who, which is what that licensing template indicates. I don't know what the rationale would be for using a nonfree promotional poster whose copyright is held by someone other than the company which owns the material the article is about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

New article on viral video - From The Doctor to my son Thomas

• From The Doctor to my son Thomas

I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)