![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 January 2007 and 30 April 2007. Please add more discussions to this archive until the 30 April date is reached.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
I noticed that a lot of Doctor Who episode articles have some pretty needlessly in-depth plot summaries, and I plan to condense a lot of these, but I have only seen the Eccleston and Tennant series. Anyone else interested in working on this? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If may offer my opinion? Both City of Death and The Empty Child are largely dialogue-driven stories; it would make sense that the plots are larger than a more action-orientated one (eg. An Unearthly Child) or a story which no-one wants to go near ( The Twin Dilemma - with good reason!!). Perhaps we could just leave them as they are - to trim a story so full of twists and turns as, say, The Doctor Dances could prove detrimental, rather than beneficial. - NP Chilla 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTCr
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has created Doctor Who: Season One through Doctor Who: Season Six, in the past there have been a few of these and they have been redirected to the list of serials, but I think it ought to be raised and discussed to see what people think. Tim! 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've standardized the various story templates ( example) to the same look and format. They look a bit tidier now. There are a couple of issues, though. One, stories like The Five Doctors are becoming ridiculous; it seems to me there must be some other way of displaying the template information. Alternatively, perhaps articles that fall in the "minor references" category of a template shouldn't contain that template. Or maybe the "minor references" section is extraneous? I recall some debate about this a while back.
I'm also wondering about the brand new ( Gallifrey) template — which felt like a good idea, as I often have trouble keeping track of which stories deal with Time Lord affairs. Also, these stories do trace a rough sort of a story arc, with the Eye of Harmony/Omega/Rassilon business, the Doctor's presidency, and the two trials. To make this template completely match the others, I can see a "minor references" section fitting in — though I'm not sure what a person might throw in there. What "minor Gallifrey references" might be worth listing? (Dialogue alone doesn't count, so no Runaway Bride or Time Warrior.)
Last thing: did I get all the templates? I don't know, as there doesn't appear to be a central resource for them. Are there any others besides Daleks, Cybermen, the Master, UNIT, and Gallifrey?-- Aderack 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that for stories with more than two or three templates we should just link to the templates, sort of like
DonQuixote 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Percy Snoodle has now made these templates collapsible, which I think is a good move. I don't have much (read: "any") knowledge of template syntax, but I've seen some templates where the default seems to be to have the template collapsed. This might be good to apply in these cases. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't (Shouldn't) "Return of the Daleks" be put in the 7th Doctor's Chronology? It can hand in hand with "The Veiled Leopard", since he is companionless and they are Doctorless? Should it be placed in release order with the rest of the Ace/Hex adventures? The Core-Man 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
does anyone know where i can get a clip off the internet of the 2006 intro (the part where it shows the TARDIS in the vortex, "David Tennant" and then "Doctor Who") to put on powerpoint. it's for a project. plz reply on my user talk page. thx -- I.W 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The doctorwhobox on the right hand side of story pages contains various facts, but I wonder if the IMDB external link. Would this be better placed under External Links instead or, given that the link provides little or no additional information, should it be removed altogether? -- The Missing Hour 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please go to the Time Lord article and see its talk page as this article has been nominated for a GA status. However, the nomination is currently on hold and some changes have been suggested; please see the articles talk page! Smomo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Another project someone with energy could take on is ensuring that all our images have the proper license and fair use rationale. This is important because the rules on fair use are being constantly restricted and applied more thoroughly, and images that aren't properly tagged are subject to deletion. We need to make sure that all the images in our articles are properly licensed (use {{ promotional}} for actual publicity shots, use {{ tv-screenshot}} for screenshots). We also need to ensure that the images have an appropriate fair use rationale, fully explicated on the image page and indicated thus in the article:
(The last part isn't enforced very strongly, but it's probably still a good idea to include.) The rationale on the image page should be specific to each article that includes it: see Image:10thplanet.jpg for an example of a rationale dealing with several pages. That image page can be used as a model for screenshots, and Image:Daleknew.jpg is a decent model for images taken from publicity shots.
There are many editors on Wikipedia who would be happy to remove every fair use image from Wikipedia. Let's not help them, shall we? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
LuciferMorgan ( talk · contribs), the editor who put Dalek on featured article review (a process which it still hasn't passed, by the way) recently informed me that he's likely to put Doctor Who, TARDIS and Doctor Who missing episodes on FAR soon. I'm not sure whether they'll all be put up at once, or if they'll be staggered, but it would behoove us to start working on improving the citations for these articles now. The issue is that the standards for featured articles have been raised since these articles were promoted — in particular, they want specific citations for almost every statement.
To get an idea of the amount of work needed, you can take a look at the edits which Dalek has undergone since it was put on FAR [1]. I encourage all project members to work together on this: the number of featured articles we've achieved is one of the things that makes us stand out from other television WikiProjects, and I'm sure we all want to retain that distinction. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Right — after two months' hard work by both members of this Project and the folks at FAR, Dalek has been passed as a featured article. I've spoken with LuciferMorgan and a few of the other FAR editor/reviewers, and they said that they don't intend to nominate any of our featured articles for FAR at this point — but they can't stop anyone else from doing it. We can choose whether we want to focus on Doctor Who (as our "flagship article", as Angmering says above) or Doctor Who missing episodes, which it seems is our most undercited FA. Whichever we start on, I'd like this to be a concentrated group effort. Anyone want to help on this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved my draft to Companion (Doctor Who) — improvements, especially those incorporating LuciferMorgan's excellent suggestion above, are welcome and invited. (I've got a copy of David Howe's book Companions somewhere, which probably has some useful content — if anyone has a copy of John Nathan-Turner's book on the companions, that could be a good source as well.) The next thing is to move all those links from Category:Doctor Who companions to companion (Doctor Who) — I'll start on that tomorrow. (It's 2:30 am where I am, so I really should go to sleep.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Since we've got the "In Print" section going for every serial novelised, I personally thought a novelisation infobox would be helpful for each of them (i.e. author(s), cover artist, novelisation that comes after, &c). DrWho42 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the "In print" sections, I've noticed that on many serial pages "In print" is above "Production". This doesn't make any sense to me — it seems logical to me to discuss the novelisation after discussing the production of the serial it was based on. I've been moving these as I come across them, and at some point soon will probably go through the serial articles systematically to make sure that the sections are in a logical order. Unless anyone objects, that is. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone going to create a template for novelisations? I'll apply them to all In print articles as soon as one's available. DrWho42 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mm, as far as what the template should (prolly) cover:
Sounds good? DrWho42 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Would we simply use the aforementioned template or create a new one for the Target Books? Some of the things listed are rather given.. DrWho42 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | |
Author | Terrance Dicks |
---|---|
Cover artist | David Mann |
Series |
Doctor Who book: Target novelisations |
Release number | 17 |
Publication date | March 1977 |
ISBN | 0-426-11244-X |
Preceded by | The Seeds of Doom |
Followed by | The Claws of Axos |
DrWho42 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That looks pretty good — the only thing missing is a field for the cover artist, which we could add to the template. (I don't have time right now, so if someone else wants to fiddle with {{ doctorwhobook}}, go to it.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Last month, Smomo put up some possible Doctor Who barnstars for WikiProject use (see here). Unfortunately, the police box image he used is BBC copyright, so it can't be used on talk pages, per WP:FU. We've had limited success getting an attractive free image of a police box, but it occurred to me that if any project members are artists, someone could create one with CG and provide it with a free license. If we had a nice, freely licensed CG police box, we could use it where we now use Image:Police Box.JPG, in project templates and the like; it could also be adapted into a WikiProject award.
Do we have any CG artists in the house who'd be interested in this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
Geni 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if Wikipedia-only licenses may be completely eliminated, even for innocuous uses like this. See this thread on WP:AN. Perhaps we should wait until the Foundation's statement is released — unless you want to contact Rob Semenoff and ask if he'd be willing to license the image under the GFDL or another free license? On the other hand, even that might not be good enough for the way the wind is blowing: Kat Walsh's letter suggests that except for a very few, extremely limited cases of free use en: will soon be as restricted as Commons, and Commons doesn't allow any derivative images. So we probably couldn't have any police box images whatsoever.
I'm rather disheartened about the whole thing. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is the situation as I understand it. The licesense isn't for only Wikipedia, its for anyone to use as long as they provide that basic information. So, as the way I see it, it would be acceptable for the use of this image in a WP Barnstar. In my opinion, it would be OK to submit the star for approval. Does anyone have a different view on the matter? Smomo 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
IMPORTANT UPDATE TO THIS PROPOSAL After an e-mail from myself, Rob has agreed to de-copyright this image and release it under a free license. He also provided me with two other TARDIS renders, also free of license. This solves our copyright problems here, and with using his TARDIS images in the future! I have updated the image page accordingly. This also means that the three TARDIS images Rob has released could be used elsewhere, in place of the TARDIS image we have for templates currently, for example. Smomo 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, I sent Rob another email to confirm he was releasing this image to the public domain. He sent me this in reply:
“ | I, Rob Semenoff, have irrevocably released all rights to this image, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution to myself, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to my site and my name would be appreciated. | ” |
I hope that clears things up :) Smomo 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
At Barnstar and award proposals, there's been a call for comments from WikiProject members about the proposed barnstar. Any interested project members should chime in. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As of today, the application for our WikiProject Barnstar was completed successfully. The image and its template have been added to the WikiProject Barnstar page, and also to our WikiProject page. See there for more details. Smomo 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, because this appears to be pretty widespread: Television show episode titles need to be in quotation marks, rather than italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) for more information. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus seems to have been in the past Chris that as for the majority of the first three years of the programme we have both episode and story titles, it's more convenient to have the old-style individual episode titles in quotations and story titles in italics. This has carried on into the new series for reasons of consistency within the Doctor Who articles themselves. Angmering 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've thought for a while that we went the wrong way as a project on this one. Just to be clear, in case anyone's confused: the original Doctor Who series (1963–1989) was made up of multi-episode serials. For the first several years of the programme, each episode had an individual name: so, you would speak of "World's End", episode one of The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Beginning with The Savages, the individual episodes were no longer given names, but were identified as "The Savages, Episode 1" and so forth.
The new series (2005–) abandoned the serial format altogether; although there are some two-part stories, each episode has its own name. The previous decision had been that it would be disconcerting to refer to Spearhead from Space and " Rose" in close proximity, and that it would be better to italicize throughout. This decision was later extended to Torchwood (see here).
However, I'm not sure that the decision was correct. If consistency is a concern, perhaps we would be better off to lose the episode/serial distinction, and put all Doctor Who television stories in quotation marks. Alternatively, we could keep the episode/serial distinction for the classic series, but put the new series and Torchwood in quotation marks, in keeping with the manual of style. Either way, I think that we should try to bring our articles in line with the general manual of style — it would be rather hypocritical of me to say otherwise, given the long-running dispute in which I maintained throughout that when WikiProject guidelines contradict Wikipedia-wide ones, the Wikipedia-wide guideline should take precedence unless the reasoning for the WikiProject exception can be explained to the satisfaction of outsiders. I don't know if the reasoning for this exception is strong enough, frankly — so we should probably bite the bullet and change at least the 21st-century episode titles to quotation marks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
in Battles in time issues 8 (The Ood: Slaves of the Beast!) to issue 11 (Clockword Robots: Automatic Assassins!) the 10th Doctor had a companion (Jayne Kadett). Can i put that on the 10th doctor's page so it looks like this.
The Tenth Doctor | |
---|---|
Doctor Who character | |
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|actual size]] | |
First regular appearance | The Parting of the Ways |
Last regular appearance | Ongoing |
Portrayed by | David Tennant |
Preceded by | Ninth Doctor ( Christopher Eccleston) |
Succeeded by | Unknown |
Information | |
Tenure | 2005 – ? |
No of series | 1 |
Appearances | 12 stories (15 episodes) |
Companions | on television
Rose,
Mickey,
Donna. in spin-offs: Jayne Kadett |
Chronology | Series 2 (2006) |
Also can i make a page/section on Kadett. what does anyone else think. plz notify me on my userpage when u reply on here.
thx. And in Doctor Who Adventures issues 20 and 21 the Doctor befreinds Kara McGravy, and in issue 22 and 23 (possibly 24 if the story goes over 3 issues ect , which is not ussally the case) he befreinds Daisy White. Are these concidered spin-off companions or are they people the Doctor just meets in a place he's visiting. McGravy hasn't travelled in the Tardis (not in the comic anyway) and neither had White, not yet anyway. wat do u think?--
I.W
19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If any project members have access to the relevant issues of Doctor Who Adventures, please do add Jayne Kadett to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions and the infobox in Tenth Doctor. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Style guides exist to promote the delivery of clear English, not to lay down rules for the sake of the rules; punctuation, fonts and other textual conventions have developed so that a writer can make his meaning clear. The formats currently used by the Doctor Who Wikiproject are clear and internally consistent, aiding in an understanding of the whole Doctor Who genre. This is not a reason alone to retain the status quo, but it is when combined with the fact that reversion to the general Wikipedia usage would lead to unclear and imprecise writing. Quotation marks are also used for quotes, song titles, themes ("Bad Wolf"), temporarary names or designations (eg "Rose" who is really Cassandra ( New Earth and "the Lonely God"), in-universe events ("Battle of Canary Wharf") and neologisms ("Tribophysics"), all of which occur frequently within the Doctor Who pages and are often linked (ie appear in blue text like the episode titles). For a quick example of a quotation-mark reversion see User:Gwinva/sandbox. Coupled with that is the unusual Doctor Who format that involves serials as well as episodes.
However, rather than proposing at Wikipedia style forums that Doctor Who should be an exception to the rules, it would perhaps be more sensible to propose that Doctor Who is re-categorised. Let me explain. As the 'brand' originated in Britain, the Doctor Who pages on Wikipedia follow the British usage for style. The most accepted British style guide is The Oxford Guide to Style. It, of course, promotes italics for series and quotation marks for individual episodes, but also states (in section 6.3):
You therefore get: Encyclopedia Britannica Dal-Lek, Virgin New Adventures Lungbarrow. The format is not without precedent in television as you get things like (my mind's gone blank so imaginary example) The Warring World documentary When the Earth Blew Up.
Doctor Who is more than a television series, it is a genre, an institution, a brand, a 'regular slot on television'. Argue in the approriate Wikipedia forums that Doctor Who should be re-classified as 'a related sequence of publications, films and television stories', then each episode, serial, film, novel, comic (and possibly even short story) requires italicised titles. Individual episodes within serials (like chapter points) use "episode" or, more correctly in Oxford style 'episode'. This format leaves Doctor Who used for the TVM only, as Doctor Who would be used everywhere else. It's easy enough to say 'the televison series first showed...' when explicitly referring only to that.
But all this is only relevant if Doctor Who WikiProject members like the current format. Gwinva 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
With the apparent first-hand confirmation of Simm's casting (see the Master (Doctor Who) or List of Doctor Who serials pages), the Master page might demand a bit of a revamp. This might be jumping the gun slightly, as the BBC has yet to give the go, though I figure we might as well start thinking about it.
The Doctor (Doctor Who) page might be a good place to start: put a picture of Simm at the top; give a procedural rundown of the previous major incarnations of the Master. Since we've never actually had the nature of the Master's various incarnations clarified for us, it probably would be difficult to create individual pages for each. It would make some sense, therefore, to differentiate them within his overall page. Ainley's portrayal was different from Delgado's, for instance. (In the Traken commentary, he mentions that JNT promised to give him some of Delgado's performances to study; he never followed up, leaving Ainley to recreate the character from scratch. It was only years later that he had the opportunity to watch the videos and study how Delgado had played the part. Roberts' Master was... a departure. Simm's will probably be completely different again.
I guess there are a couple of reasons for my posting this. One, I'm looking for input on when would be a good time to go ahead and edit the page; two, I'm looking for further ideas on how best to revise it.-- Aderack 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right - that seems to be the wisest course of action. - NP Chilla 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that, whatever the production team's intentions, different actors played the character in The Deadly Assassin and The Keeper of Traken, I think it's slightly misleading to use both names in the image caption. We should probably either include images of both actors in the role, or caption only the ones we choose to feature. (To put it another way: the makers of the TV Movie may have intended Gordon Tipple to be playing the same version of the Master that Anthony Ainley played, but we shouldn't caption a picture of Ainley as "Anthony Ainley/Gordon Tipple".) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of Category:Doctor Who producers, Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures producers and Category:Torchwood producers. Tim! 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm building a list of the articles that we have edited to a good standard that have received awards (GA or FA) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Awarded_articles. Please can you contribute any articles you know of with awards, especially GAs, at that page. Thanks. Smomo 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
How's work progressing on improving Doctor Who related FAs to the current standard? It'd be nice to know. LuciferMorgan 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously I didn't get around to creating the "Citations" section or subpage this week, for a bunch of reasons (including being distracted by the Essjay affair). Before all that happened, I had asked about citation format at Template talk:Cite episode. It turns out that there's no standard on Wikipedia for what credits need to be included in a footnote citation for a television episode. The citations I provided at Dalek were based on a now-removed example at Template:Cite episode. There, I listed writer, director and producer thus:
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)The MLA Handbook is flexible about what credits are to be included, saying "for the inclusion of other information that may be pertinent (e.g. performers, director, narrator, number of episodes), see the sample entries." There aren't many sample entries for episodic fiction television, and they include performer and director. I figure we should get a consensus here about which credits are important for Doctor Who episode citations, and how best to include them. Should we include "Performer William Hartnell"? Should we reduce the number of credits, and merely allow the reader to be pointed to the episode's page for more details? Which credits do y'all think are important in a footnote? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone going to create a page for this? We have one for I am a Dalek.
I haven't receive my copy yet (still waiting on Amazon) but I have added some information, such as the fact this is the first New Series-related project to involve writing personnel from the original series, and that Dicks has now written something for every line of DW fiction except the Telos books. And at 112 pages. MoS is actually longer than some of his Target books! Also made a correction - Adeola wasn't in Doomsday. 23skidoo 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently on the basis of some timeline-related article on The West Wing being successfully deleted (on its third nomination) recently an editor as decided that UNIT dating controversy has to go as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNIT dating controversy. 23skidoo 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The presence of {{ Torchwood}} on Doctor Who pages such as The Christmas Invasion and Doomsday (Doctor Who) seems to be confusing passing editors. I know that the original intention was to add the template to Doctor Who episodes which seeded Torchwood, or dealt with the Torchwood Institute. But what's happening now is that editors who come upon the page think that {{ Torchwood}} is meant to be for episodes of Torchwood, and are replacing it with {{ Doctor Who}}, or adding {{ Doctor Who}}. Right now, {{ Doctor Who}} is not generally used on episode pages, but now that it's nice and collapsible I don't see any reason why it couldn't be. I think that if the pages have both {{ Doctor Who}} and {{ Torchwood}} on them (as Doomsday (Doctor Who) does at the moment), that will be less confusing to readers and editors than having {{ Torchwood}} and {{ Doctor Who}}. Does anyone disagree? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So I've got before me Doctor Who: The Inside Story, "The Definitive Guide to the Making of the New Series", written by Gary Russell. It's got a particular numbering system for the episodes, which I took the liberty of applying to the list of doctor who serials in place of the arbitrary one that had been adopted while we were waiting for any official scheme to present itself. The portion of the book that deals with the individual episodes is split up into sections, each headed by a huge two-page spread and original Photoshop collage. On the upper-right, in huge letters, it says "SERIES ONE" or "SERIES TWO"; underneath that it lists the episodes, using the numbering scheme in question.
Something else I notice is that it makes a point of including both the Children in Need special and The Christmas Invasion as part of series two. They're not split off into their own section, or given separate treatment. They're listed, right there, as part of the series. Their numbering also reflects this. Well, the Christmas numbering; the Children in Need skit is left blank.
Oh, also the CIN skit is named the other way 'round from how we've got it listed here: "Children in Need: Doctor Who".
So. Thoughts?-- Aderack 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What with the release to the public domain of several good quality TARDIS images, might now be the time to update all of our templates and logos? I propose the new TARDIS image, Image:TARDIS1.png, be used instead of the old police box image we use currently. Any thoughts? Smomo 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I Agree but stick the doctor who logo under it -- Madcow 93 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
So, is everything OK to go ahead and do this? Smomo 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The lastest CFD nominations are for Category:Doctor Who people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Doctor Who composers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Doctor Who novelists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Doctor Who story editors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
List of Doctor Who actors has also replaced the cast members category... Tim! 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There are some benefits to administrator-hood ;) Tim! 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont forget the little girl in Small Worlds who also appeared in the house in The Idiots Lantern.
Not directly related to the project, but I'm posting this here as it seems to be the place where it's likeliest to be noticed by those who might be interested. I've done a lot of work on this article, and currently have it up as a featured article candidate. It's not attracting many votes, however, so if you do get the chance to read it and cast your vote for yea or ney I'd be very grateful. Yes, I know it's an article about a man who loathed and detested Doctor Who, but I think he deserves a decent Wikipedia article and I know that many fans of Who are also fans of his work, hence my posting this here. Cheers all. Angmering 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest merging the new article Laws of Time (Doctor Who) into Time Lord. Tim! 09:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else have a problem with the in-universe perspective and unreferenced nature of this article? I'd plonk for deletion, myself. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I support the creation of a section on the Laws of Time in the Time Lord article, but I agree that the Laws of Time article seems too much like original research. I do not recall any occasion on which the laws were numbered like this; all we know is the first law. The others might possibly derive from novels or conjecture -- but this needs to be sourced. As it stands if someone were to nominate it for WP:AFD I'd have no choice but to vote to delete it. GracieLizzie has the right idea -- let's just create a paragraph on the Laws of Time. Incidentally, to be fair, I have advised the creator of the article about this discussion and have also requested he/she add sources to the original article as soon as possible. If this is done, it might make it easier to decide what (if anything) should be merged ... or even if the article should be kept on its own. 23skidoo 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a {{ prod}} tag to the article — this gives the page's creator five days to provide sources or otherwise improve the article before it's deleted. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an article on non-fiction Doctor Who books? I'm wondering if there should be a place to list things like Travel without the TARDIS or Jean-Marc Lofficier's multi-volume programme guides for Target, or for that matter works such as The Making of Doctor Who or the recent Doctor Who: The Inside Story? 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary that every bloody article about the books and so on has to have that line about 'the canonical status is disputed'. It seems rather childish and Un-encyclopedic. They're also all printed with black ink on white paper, that seems about as relevant as tedious debates on internet message boards which is all 'canon' really amounts to. 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
For anyone interested please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Tim! 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the Internal Counter-Intelligence Service article there is the following paragraph under ICIS Dating which doesn't look quiet right to me:
As has been pointed out on the corresponding talk page, not that many people seem to believe in aliens in Torchwood and TSJA either. Could someone more familiar with the Big Finish Audios and/or the whole UNIT dating issue rectify this? Thanks. -- GracieLizzie 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to go ahead and put {{Doctorwhoproject}} on the talk page of The Mill (post-production), but though I should check if they fall under the scope of the project first. -- GracieLizzie 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a category for people - actors, production staff, etc. We should discuss these categories here and implement them asap. An obvious first addition would be something like "Doctor Who actors", perhaps under the new category "Doctor Who people"..? Maybe we could look at the Buffy and Star Trek cats for an example of structure.. I'm sure they probably have cats for the various people involved. -- Mal 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The number of IPs and very new users without userpages who post unsourced drivel on to the articles for Series 3 episodes is going up, and I'm getting tired of reverting it and feeling nervous about reproaching them (I mean, we wouldn't want to bite newbies, or anything, would we?). So, could someone please clarify the situation on reversion, page protection and warning perpetrators? Thanks very much.-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the infobox for each episode to contain a list of all the episodes in that series. An example is at Rose. This is temporary while a consensus is made here; then we can either remove or expand the usage of this. Please comment on what you think of it. -- Thelb 4 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Has the idea of incorporating the assessment scale system which appears on other wikiprojects? I quiet like it myself, I was wonderin if others do or if anyone has any reservations. -- GracieLizzie 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I just finished creating/debugging a Serial/Episode navigation template. I think it's needed because scrolling back to the top of the page to go click on the link to the next episode is a little too tiresome. This template is primarily for the bottom of a serial/episode page.
{{ Template:Doctorwhoserialnav}}
Check out An Unearthly Child for a preview. DonQuixote 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean it to be about information but about navigation. I used Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton as a precedent. Anyway, discuss. DonQuixote 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have been going through the stories pages and have been trying to give them a more uniform look (mostly moving the 'In Print' section so that it is above the releases section - I had seen a few other editors doing this and it seemed to make sense as, with only a few exceptions, the books came out before the VHS etc releases) I found that there are several different names for the section headers covering the various formats in which the stories have been released.
As I thought about whether there was one title (ie Continuity or Production) that could be used on every article a few thoughts came up:
While I would lean toward suggestion number two, I'm sure that you members of the project will have other ideas. In any event, this is all just food for thought. Should the project come to a decision on this matter I would be happy to offer my services as a wikignome to go through and change the titles to any form that is decided upon
One last word of thanks to all of you members of this Doctor Who project. I think that you do remarkable work and keep up the good job. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the Doctor Who articles are superb but lack in-line citations, with mentions of episodes regarding various facts making for clumsy prose. I suggest a sub-page where editors can simply cut and paste {{cite episode}} templates for each episode to use for citations to make life easier. So basically a version of the List of Doctor Who serials article with templates for editors to copy and paste from.
Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I started it, but someone who's better at table formats then me should add the {{[[cite episode]]}} format. I'll try. Alientraveller 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Our article on TARDIS says that the patent office has granted the TARDIS trademark to the BBC [2]. This link is unavailable at time of writing. They rejected a challenge from the Metropolitan Police, which has never used the word TARDIS but objected to the police box image. This suggests to me that the image itself is a trademark of the BBC.
On this basis. I suggest that it might be a good idea to stop using that trademark image on Wikipedia to signify the Doctor Who WikiProject, as in the use of Image:TARDIS1.png (which although a free image, employs the BBC trademark image) in Template:Doctorwhoproject. -- Tony Sidaway 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone keep an eye on this. There's this incredibly OR "Sontaran controversy" section where the poster has said they'll revert whomever deletes it unless they discus their reasons "in depth" in talk. Personally, I don't see any reason to discuss what is a clear violation of OR with no citations in depth, but there you go. Article could also use cleaning up.
Real life has been keeping me busy, so I've not been keeping as close an eye on things as I used to (and there was great rejoicing), and my threshold for Wikidrama has lowered considerably. Anyway, that article needs work, if not simply merger into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, since the Judoon have only appeared in one story so far. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope people agree with me in that this page is getting too long, is it time for an Archive?-- Wiggstar69 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a go at adding some inlines over the weekend. Angmering 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought I should bring Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy to people's attention. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You folks might like to keep an eye on the contribs of MrFijiax ( talk · contribs), who's recently been inserting a swathe of apparently spurious additions into various Doctor Who-related articles and lists.-- cjllw | TALK 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 January 2007 and 30 April 2007. Please add more discussions to this archive until the 30 April date is reached.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
I noticed that a lot of Doctor Who episode articles have some pretty needlessly in-depth plot summaries, and I plan to condense a lot of these, but I have only seen the Eccleston and Tennant series. Anyone else interested in working on this? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If may offer my opinion? Both City of Death and The Empty Child are largely dialogue-driven stories; it would make sense that the plots are larger than a more action-orientated one (eg. An Unearthly Child) or a story which no-one wants to go near ( The Twin Dilemma - with good reason!!). Perhaps we could just leave them as they are - to trim a story so full of twists and turns as, say, The Doctor Dances could prove detrimental, rather than beneficial. - NP Chilla 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTCr
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone has created Doctor Who: Season One through Doctor Who: Season Six, in the past there have been a few of these and they have been redirected to the list of serials, but I think it ought to be raised and discussed to see what people think. Tim! 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've standardized the various story templates ( example) to the same look and format. They look a bit tidier now. There are a couple of issues, though. One, stories like The Five Doctors are becoming ridiculous; it seems to me there must be some other way of displaying the template information. Alternatively, perhaps articles that fall in the "minor references" category of a template shouldn't contain that template. Or maybe the "minor references" section is extraneous? I recall some debate about this a while back.
I'm also wondering about the brand new ( Gallifrey) template — which felt like a good idea, as I often have trouble keeping track of which stories deal with Time Lord affairs. Also, these stories do trace a rough sort of a story arc, with the Eye of Harmony/Omega/Rassilon business, the Doctor's presidency, and the two trials. To make this template completely match the others, I can see a "minor references" section fitting in — though I'm not sure what a person might throw in there. What "minor Gallifrey references" might be worth listing? (Dialogue alone doesn't count, so no Runaway Bride or Time Warrior.)
Last thing: did I get all the templates? I don't know, as there doesn't appear to be a central resource for them. Are there any others besides Daleks, Cybermen, the Master, UNIT, and Gallifrey?-- Aderack 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that for stories with more than two or three templates we should just link to the templates, sort of like
DonQuixote 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that Percy Snoodle has now made these templates collapsible, which I think is a good move. I don't have much (read: "any") knowledge of template syntax, but I've seen some templates where the default seems to be to have the template collapsed. This might be good to apply in these cases. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't (Shouldn't) "Return of the Daleks" be put in the 7th Doctor's Chronology? It can hand in hand with "The Veiled Leopard", since he is companionless and they are Doctorless? Should it be placed in release order with the rest of the Ace/Hex adventures? The Core-Man 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
does anyone know where i can get a clip off the internet of the 2006 intro (the part where it shows the TARDIS in the vortex, "David Tennant" and then "Doctor Who") to put on powerpoint. it's for a project. plz reply on my user talk page. thx -- I.W 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The doctorwhobox on the right hand side of story pages contains various facts, but I wonder if the IMDB external link. Would this be better placed under External Links instead or, given that the link provides little or no additional information, should it be removed altogether? -- The Missing Hour 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Please go to the Time Lord article and see its talk page as this article has been nominated for a GA status. However, the nomination is currently on hold and some changes have been suggested; please see the articles talk page! Smomo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Another project someone with energy could take on is ensuring that all our images have the proper license and fair use rationale. This is important because the rules on fair use are being constantly restricted and applied more thoroughly, and images that aren't properly tagged are subject to deletion. We need to make sure that all the images in our articles are properly licensed (use {{ promotional}} for actual publicity shots, use {{ tv-screenshot}} for screenshots). We also need to ensure that the images have an appropriate fair use rationale, fully explicated on the image page and indicated thus in the article:
(The last part isn't enforced very strongly, but it's probably still a good idea to include.) The rationale on the image page should be specific to each article that includes it: see Image:10thplanet.jpg for an example of a rationale dealing with several pages. That image page can be used as a model for screenshots, and Image:Daleknew.jpg is a decent model for images taken from publicity shots.
There are many editors on Wikipedia who would be happy to remove every fair use image from Wikipedia. Let's not help them, shall we? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
LuciferMorgan ( talk · contribs), the editor who put Dalek on featured article review (a process which it still hasn't passed, by the way) recently informed me that he's likely to put Doctor Who, TARDIS and Doctor Who missing episodes on FAR soon. I'm not sure whether they'll all be put up at once, or if they'll be staggered, but it would behoove us to start working on improving the citations for these articles now. The issue is that the standards for featured articles have been raised since these articles were promoted — in particular, they want specific citations for almost every statement.
To get an idea of the amount of work needed, you can take a look at the edits which Dalek has undergone since it was put on FAR [1]. I encourage all project members to work together on this: the number of featured articles we've achieved is one of the things that makes us stand out from other television WikiProjects, and I'm sure we all want to retain that distinction. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Right — after two months' hard work by both members of this Project and the folks at FAR, Dalek has been passed as a featured article. I've spoken with LuciferMorgan and a few of the other FAR editor/reviewers, and they said that they don't intend to nominate any of our featured articles for FAR at this point — but they can't stop anyone else from doing it. We can choose whether we want to focus on Doctor Who (as our "flagship article", as Angmering says above) or Doctor Who missing episodes, which it seems is our most undercited FA. Whichever we start on, I'd like this to be a concentrated group effort. Anyone want to help on this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved my draft to Companion (Doctor Who) — improvements, especially those incorporating LuciferMorgan's excellent suggestion above, are welcome and invited. (I've got a copy of David Howe's book Companions somewhere, which probably has some useful content — if anyone has a copy of John Nathan-Turner's book on the companions, that could be a good source as well.) The next thing is to move all those links from Category:Doctor Who companions to companion (Doctor Who) — I'll start on that tomorrow. (It's 2:30 am where I am, so I really should go to sleep.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Since we've got the "In Print" section going for every serial novelised, I personally thought a novelisation infobox would be helpful for each of them (i.e. author(s), cover artist, novelisation that comes after, &c). DrWho42 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the "In print" sections, I've noticed that on many serial pages "In print" is above "Production". This doesn't make any sense to me — it seems logical to me to discuss the novelisation after discussing the production of the serial it was based on. I've been moving these as I come across them, and at some point soon will probably go through the serial articles systematically to make sure that the sections are in a logical order. Unless anyone objects, that is. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone going to create a template for novelisations? I'll apply them to all In print articles as soon as one's available. DrWho42 02:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Mm, as far as what the template should (prolly) cover:
Sounds good? DrWho42 16:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Would we simply use the aforementioned template or create a new one for the Target Books? Some of the things listed are rather given.. DrWho42 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() | |
Author | Terrance Dicks |
---|---|
Cover artist | David Mann |
Series |
Doctor Who book: Target novelisations |
Release number | 17 |
Publication date | March 1977 |
ISBN | 0-426-11244-X |
Preceded by | The Seeds of Doom |
Followed by | The Claws of Axos |
DrWho42 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That looks pretty good — the only thing missing is a field for the cover artist, which we could add to the template. (I don't have time right now, so if someone else wants to fiddle with {{ doctorwhobook}}, go to it.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Last month, Smomo put up some possible Doctor Who barnstars for WikiProject use (see here). Unfortunately, the police box image he used is BBC copyright, so it can't be used on talk pages, per WP:FU. We've had limited success getting an attractive free image of a police box, but it occurred to me that if any project members are artists, someone could create one with CG and provide it with a free license. If we had a nice, freely licensed CG police box, we could use it where we now use Image:Police Box.JPG, in project templates and the like; it could also be adapted into a WikiProject award.
Do we have any CG artists in the house who'd be interested in this? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this:
Geni 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks as if Wikipedia-only licenses may be completely eliminated, even for innocuous uses like this. See this thread on WP:AN. Perhaps we should wait until the Foundation's statement is released — unless you want to contact Rob Semenoff and ask if he'd be willing to license the image under the GFDL or another free license? On the other hand, even that might not be good enough for the way the wind is blowing: Kat Walsh's letter suggests that except for a very few, extremely limited cases of free use en: will soon be as restricted as Commons, and Commons doesn't allow any derivative images. So we probably couldn't have any police box images whatsoever.
I'm rather disheartened about the whole thing. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is the situation as I understand it. The licesense isn't for only Wikipedia, its for anyone to use as long as they provide that basic information. So, as the way I see it, it would be acceptable for the use of this image in a WP Barnstar. In my opinion, it would be OK to submit the star for approval. Does anyone have a different view on the matter? Smomo 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
IMPORTANT UPDATE TO THIS PROPOSAL After an e-mail from myself, Rob has agreed to de-copyright this image and release it under a free license. He also provided me with two other TARDIS renders, also free of license. This solves our copyright problems here, and with using his TARDIS images in the future! I have updated the image page accordingly. This also means that the three TARDIS images Rob has released could be used elsewhere, in place of the TARDIS image we have for templates currently, for example. Smomo 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, I sent Rob another email to confirm he was releasing this image to the public domain. He sent me this in reply:
“ | I, Rob Semenoff, have irrevocably released all rights to this image, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution to myself, as if in the public domain. However, as a courtesy, a link back to my site and my name would be appreciated. | ” |
I hope that clears things up :) Smomo 21:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
At Barnstar and award proposals, there's been a call for comments from WikiProject members about the proposed barnstar. Any interested project members should chime in. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As of today, the application for our WikiProject Barnstar was completed successfully. The image and its template have been added to the WikiProject Barnstar page, and also to our WikiProject page. See there for more details. Smomo 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, because this appears to be pretty widespread: Television show episode titles need to be in quotation marks, rather than italics. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) for more information. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The consensus seems to have been in the past Chris that as for the majority of the first three years of the programme we have both episode and story titles, it's more convenient to have the old-style individual episode titles in quotations and story titles in italics. This has carried on into the new series for reasons of consistency within the Doctor Who articles themselves. Angmering 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've thought for a while that we went the wrong way as a project on this one. Just to be clear, in case anyone's confused: the original Doctor Who series (1963–1989) was made up of multi-episode serials. For the first several years of the programme, each episode had an individual name: so, you would speak of "World's End", episode one of The Dalek Invasion of Earth. Beginning with The Savages, the individual episodes were no longer given names, but were identified as "The Savages, Episode 1" and so forth.
The new series (2005–) abandoned the serial format altogether; although there are some two-part stories, each episode has its own name. The previous decision had been that it would be disconcerting to refer to Spearhead from Space and " Rose" in close proximity, and that it would be better to italicize throughout. This decision was later extended to Torchwood (see here).
However, I'm not sure that the decision was correct. If consistency is a concern, perhaps we would be better off to lose the episode/serial distinction, and put all Doctor Who television stories in quotation marks. Alternatively, we could keep the episode/serial distinction for the classic series, but put the new series and Torchwood in quotation marks, in keeping with the manual of style. Either way, I think that we should try to bring our articles in line with the general manual of style — it would be rather hypocritical of me to say otherwise, given the long-running dispute in which I maintained throughout that when WikiProject guidelines contradict Wikipedia-wide ones, the Wikipedia-wide guideline should take precedence unless the reasoning for the WikiProject exception can be explained to the satisfaction of outsiders. I don't know if the reasoning for this exception is strong enough, frankly — so we should probably bite the bullet and change at least the 21st-century episode titles to quotation marks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
in Battles in time issues 8 (The Ood: Slaves of the Beast!) to issue 11 (Clockword Robots: Automatic Assassins!) the 10th Doctor had a companion (Jayne Kadett). Can i put that on the 10th doctor's page so it looks like this.
The Tenth Doctor | |
---|---|
Doctor Who character | |
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|actual size]] | |
First regular appearance | The Parting of the Ways |
Last regular appearance | Ongoing |
Portrayed by | David Tennant |
Preceded by | Ninth Doctor ( Christopher Eccleston) |
Succeeded by | Unknown |
Information | |
Tenure | 2005 – ? |
No of series | 1 |
Appearances | 12 stories (15 episodes) |
Companions | on television
Rose,
Mickey,
Donna. in spin-offs: Jayne Kadett |
Chronology | Series 2 (2006) |
Also can i make a page/section on Kadett. what does anyone else think. plz notify me on my userpage when u reply on here.
thx. And in Doctor Who Adventures issues 20 and 21 the Doctor befreinds Kara McGravy, and in issue 22 and 23 (possibly 24 if the story goes over 3 issues ect , which is not ussally the case) he befreinds Daisy White. Are these concidered spin-off companions or are they people the Doctor just meets in a place he's visiting. McGravy hasn't travelled in the Tardis (not in the comic anyway) and neither had White, not yet anyway. wat do u think?--
I.W
19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If any project members have access to the relevant issues of Doctor Who Adventures, please do add Jayne Kadett to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions and the infobox in Tenth Doctor. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Style guides exist to promote the delivery of clear English, not to lay down rules for the sake of the rules; punctuation, fonts and other textual conventions have developed so that a writer can make his meaning clear. The formats currently used by the Doctor Who Wikiproject are clear and internally consistent, aiding in an understanding of the whole Doctor Who genre. This is not a reason alone to retain the status quo, but it is when combined with the fact that reversion to the general Wikipedia usage would lead to unclear and imprecise writing. Quotation marks are also used for quotes, song titles, themes ("Bad Wolf"), temporarary names or designations (eg "Rose" who is really Cassandra ( New Earth and "the Lonely God"), in-universe events ("Battle of Canary Wharf") and neologisms ("Tribophysics"), all of which occur frequently within the Doctor Who pages and are often linked (ie appear in blue text like the episode titles). For a quick example of a quotation-mark reversion see User:Gwinva/sandbox. Coupled with that is the unusual Doctor Who format that involves serials as well as episodes.
However, rather than proposing at Wikipedia style forums that Doctor Who should be an exception to the rules, it would perhaps be more sensible to propose that Doctor Who is re-categorised. Let me explain. As the 'brand' originated in Britain, the Doctor Who pages on Wikipedia follow the British usage for style. The most accepted British style guide is The Oxford Guide to Style. It, of course, promotes italics for series and quotation marks for individual episodes, but also states (in section 6.3):
You therefore get: Encyclopedia Britannica Dal-Lek, Virgin New Adventures Lungbarrow. The format is not without precedent in television as you get things like (my mind's gone blank so imaginary example) The Warring World documentary When the Earth Blew Up.
Doctor Who is more than a television series, it is a genre, an institution, a brand, a 'regular slot on television'. Argue in the approriate Wikipedia forums that Doctor Who should be re-classified as 'a related sequence of publications, films and television stories', then each episode, serial, film, novel, comic (and possibly even short story) requires italicised titles. Individual episodes within serials (like chapter points) use "episode" or, more correctly in Oxford style 'episode'. This format leaves Doctor Who used for the TVM only, as Doctor Who would be used everywhere else. It's easy enough to say 'the televison series first showed...' when explicitly referring only to that.
But all this is only relevant if Doctor Who WikiProject members like the current format. Gwinva 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
With the apparent first-hand confirmation of Simm's casting (see the Master (Doctor Who) or List of Doctor Who serials pages), the Master page might demand a bit of a revamp. This might be jumping the gun slightly, as the BBC has yet to give the go, though I figure we might as well start thinking about it.
The Doctor (Doctor Who) page might be a good place to start: put a picture of Simm at the top; give a procedural rundown of the previous major incarnations of the Master. Since we've never actually had the nature of the Master's various incarnations clarified for us, it probably would be difficult to create individual pages for each. It would make some sense, therefore, to differentiate them within his overall page. Ainley's portrayal was different from Delgado's, for instance. (In the Traken commentary, he mentions that JNT promised to give him some of Delgado's performances to study; he never followed up, leaving Ainley to recreate the character from scratch. It was only years later that he had the opportunity to watch the videos and study how Delgado had played the part. Roberts' Master was... a departure. Simm's will probably be completely different again.
I guess there are a couple of reasons for my posting this. One, I'm looking for input on when would be a good time to go ahead and edit the page; two, I'm looking for further ideas on how best to revise it.-- Aderack 03:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right - that seems to be the wisest course of action. - NP Chilla 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that, whatever the production team's intentions, different actors played the character in The Deadly Assassin and The Keeper of Traken, I think it's slightly misleading to use both names in the image caption. We should probably either include images of both actors in the role, or caption only the ones we choose to feature. (To put it another way: the makers of the TV Movie may have intended Gordon Tipple to be playing the same version of the Master that Anthony Ainley played, but we shouldn't caption a picture of Ainley as "Anthony Ainley/Gordon Tipple".) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of Category:Doctor Who producers, Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures producers and Category:Torchwood producers. Tim! 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm building a list of the articles that we have edited to a good standard that have received awards (GA or FA) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Awarded_articles. Please can you contribute any articles you know of with awards, especially GAs, at that page. Thanks. Smomo 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
How's work progressing on improving Doctor Who related FAs to the current standard? It'd be nice to know. LuciferMorgan 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously I didn't get around to creating the "Citations" section or subpage this week, for a bunch of reasons (including being distracted by the Essjay affair). Before all that happened, I had asked about citation format at Template talk:Cite episode. It turns out that there's no standard on Wikipedia for what credits need to be included in a footnote citation for a television episode. The citations I provided at Dalek were based on a now-removed example at Template:Cite episode. There, I listed writer, director and producer thus:
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |city=
ignored (|location=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)The MLA Handbook is flexible about what credits are to be included, saying "for the inclusion of other information that may be pertinent (e.g. performers, director, narrator, number of episodes), see the sample entries." There aren't many sample entries for episodic fiction television, and they include performer and director. I figure we should get a consensus here about which credits are important for Doctor Who episode citations, and how best to include them. Should we include "Performer William Hartnell"? Should we reduce the number of credits, and merely allow the reader to be pointed to the episode's page for more details? Which credits do y'all think are important in a footnote? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone going to create a page for this? We have one for I am a Dalek.
I haven't receive my copy yet (still waiting on Amazon) but I have added some information, such as the fact this is the first New Series-related project to involve writing personnel from the original series, and that Dicks has now written something for every line of DW fiction except the Telos books. And at 112 pages. MoS is actually longer than some of his Target books! Also made a correction - Adeola wasn't in Doomsday. 23skidoo 04:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently on the basis of some timeline-related article on The West Wing being successfully deleted (on its third nomination) recently an editor as decided that UNIT dating controversy has to go as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNIT dating controversy. 23skidoo 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The presence of {{ Torchwood}} on Doctor Who pages such as The Christmas Invasion and Doomsday (Doctor Who) seems to be confusing passing editors. I know that the original intention was to add the template to Doctor Who episodes which seeded Torchwood, or dealt with the Torchwood Institute. But what's happening now is that editors who come upon the page think that {{ Torchwood}} is meant to be for episodes of Torchwood, and are replacing it with {{ Doctor Who}}, or adding {{ Doctor Who}}. Right now, {{ Doctor Who}} is not generally used on episode pages, but now that it's nice and collapsible I don't see any reason why it couldn't be. I think that if the pages have both {{ Doctor Who}} and {{ Torchwood}} on them (as Doomsday (Doctor Who) does at the moment), that will be less confusing to readers and editors than having {{ Torchwood}} and {{ Doctor Who}}. Does anyone disagree? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So I've got before me Doctor Who: The Inside Story, "The Definitive Guide to the Making of the New Series", written by Gary Russell. It's got a particular numbering system for the episodes, which I took the liberty of applying to the list of doctor who serials in place of the arbitrary one that had been adopted while we were waiting for any official scheme to present itself. The portion of the book that deals with the individual episodes is split up into sections, each headed by a huge two-page spread and original Photoshop collage. On the upper-right, in huge letters, it says "SERIES ONE" or "SERIES TWO"; underneath that it lists the episodes, using the numbering scheme in question.
Something else I notice is that it makes a point of including both the Children in Need special and The Christmas Invasion as part of series two. They're not split off into their own section, or given separate treatment. They're listed, right there, as part of the series. Their numbering also reflects this. Well, the Christmas numbering; the Children in Need skit is left blank.
Oh, also the CIN skit is named the other way 'round from how we've got it listed here: "Children in Need: Doctor Who".
So. Thoughts?-- Aderack 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What with the release to the public domain of several good quality TARDIS images, might now be the time to update all of our templates and logos? I propose the new TARDIS image, Image:TARDIS1.png, be used instead of the old police box image we use currently. Any thoughts? Smomo 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I Agree but stick the doctor who logo under it -- Madcow 93 13:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
So, is everything OK to go ahead and do this? Smomo 12:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The lastest CFD nominations are for Category:Doctor Who people ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Doctor Who composers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Doctor Who novelists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Doctor Who story editors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
List of Doctor Who actors has also replaced the cast members category... Tim! 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
There are some benefits to administrator-hood ;) Tim! 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont forget the little girl in Small Worlds who also appeared in the house in The Idiots Lantern.
Not directly related to the project, but I'm posting this here as it seems to be the place where it's likeliest to be noticed by those who might be interested. I've done a lot of work on this article, and currently have it up as a featured article candidate. It's not attracting many votes, however, so if you do get the chance to read it and cast your vote for yea or ney I'd be very grateful. Yes, I know it's an article about a man who loathed and detested Doctor Who, but I think he deserves a decent Wikipedia article and I know that many fans of Who are also fans of his work, hence my posting this here. Cheers all. Angmering 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest merging the new article Laws of Time (Doctor Who) into Time Lord. Tim! 09:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else have a problem with the in-universe perspective and unreferenced nature of this article? I'd plonk for deletion, myself. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I support the creation of a section on the Laws of Time in the Time Lord article, but I agree that the Laws of Time article seems too much like original research. I do not recall any occasion on which the laws were numbered like this; all we know is the first law. The others might possibly derive from novels or conjecture -- but this needs to be sourced. As it stands if someone were to nominate it for WP:AFD I'd have no choice but to vote to delete it. GracieLizzie has the right idea -- let's just create a paragraph on the Laws of Time. Incidentally, to be fair, I have advised the creator of the article about this discussion and have also requested he/she add sources to the original article as soon as possible. If this is done, it might make it easier to decide what (if anything) should be merged ... or even if the article should be kept on its own. 23skidoo 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a {{ prod}} tag to the article — this gives the page's creator five days to provide sources or otherwise improve the article before it's deleted. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there an article on non-fiction Doctor Who books? I'm wondering if there should be a place to list things like Travel without the TARDIS or Jean-Marc Lofficier's multi-volume programme guides for Target, or for that matter works such as The Making of Doctor Who or the recent Doctor Who: The Inside Story? 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary that every bloody article about the books and so on has to have that line about 'the canonical status is disputed'. It seems rather childish and Un-encyclopedic. They're also all printed with black ink on white paper, that seems about as relevant as tedious debates on internet message boards which is all 'canon' really amounts to. 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
For anyone interested please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Tim! 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In the Internal Counter-Intelligence Service article there is the following paragraph under ICIS Dating which doesn't look quiet right to me:
As has been pointed out on the corresponding talk page, not that many people seem to believe in aliens in Torchwood and TSJA either. Could someone more familiar with the Big Finish Audios and/or the whole UNIT dating issue rectify this? Thanks. -- GracieLizzie 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to go ahead and put {{Doctorwhoproject}} on the talk page of The Mill (post-production), but though I should check if they fall under the scope of the project first. -- GracieLizzie 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a category for people - actors, production staff, etc. We should discuss these categories here and implement them asap. An obvious first addition would be something like "Doctor Who actors", perhaps under the new category "Doctor Who people"..? Maybe we could look at the Buffy and Star Trek cats for an example of structure.. I'm sure they probably have cats for the various people involved. -- Mal 05:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The number of IPs and very new users without userpages who post unsourced drivel on to the articles for Series 3 episodes is going up, and I'm getting tired of reverting it and feeling nervous about reproaching them (I mean, we wouldn't want to bite newbies, or anything, would we?). So, could someone please clarify the situation on reversion, page protection and warning perpetrators? Thanks very much.-- Rambutan ( talk) 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the infobox for each episode to contain a list of all the episodes in that series. An example is at Rose. This is temporary while a consensus is made here; then we can either remove or expand the usage of this. Please comment on what you think of it. -- Thelb 4 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Has the idea of incorporating the assessment scale system which appears on other wikiprojects? I quiet like it myself, I was wonderin if others do or if anyone has any reservations. -- GracieLizzie 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I just finished creating/debugging a Serial/Episode navigation template. I think it's needed because scrolling back to the top of the page to go click on the link to the next episode is a little too tiresome. This template is primarily for the bottom of a serial/episode page.
{{ Template:Doctorwhoserialnav}}
Check out An Unearthly Child for a preview. DonQuixote 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean it to be about information but about navigation. I used Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton as a precedent. Anyway, discuss. DonQuixote 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As I have been going through the stories pages and have been trying to give them a more uniform look (mostly moving the 'In Print' section so that it is above the releases section - I had seen a few other editors doing this and it seemed to make sense as, with only a few exceptions, the books came out before the VHS etc releases) I found that there are several different names for the section headers covering the various formats in which the stories have been released.
As I thought about whether there was one title (ie Continuity or Production) that could be used on every article a few thoughts came up:
While I would lean toward suggestion number two, I'm sure that you members of the project will have other ideas. In any event, this is all just food for thought. Should the project come to a decision on this matter I would be happy to offer my services as a wikignome to go through and change the titles to any form that is decided upon
One last word of thanks to all of you members of this Doctor Who project. I think that you do remarkable work and keep up the good job. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of the Doctor Who articles are superb but lack in-line citations, with mentions of episodes regarding various facts making for clumsy prose. I suggest a sub-page where editors can simply cut and paste {{cite episode}} templates for each episode to use for citations to make life easier. So basically a version of the List of Doctor Who serials article with templates for editors to copy and paste from.
Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I started it, but someone who's better at table formats then me should add the {{[[cite episode]]}} format. I'll try. Alientraveller 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Our article on TARDIS says that the patent office has granted the TARDIS trademark to the BBC [2]. This link is unavailable at time of writing. They rejected a challenge from the Metropolitan Police, which has never used the word TARDIS but objected to the police box image. This suggests to me that the image itself is a trademark of the BBC.
On this basis. I suggest that it might be a good idea to stop using that trademark image on Wikipedia to signify the Doctor Who WikiProject, as in the use of Image:TARDIS1.png (which although a free image, employs the BBC trademark image) in Template:Doctorwhoproject. -- Tony Sidaway 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone keep an eye on this. There's this incredibly OR "Sontaran controversy" section where the poster has said they'll revert whomever deletes it unless they discus their reasons "in depth" in talk. Personally, I don't see any reason to discuss what is a clear violation of OR with no citations in depth, but there you go. Article could also use cleaning up.
Real life has been keeping me busy, so I've not been keeping as close an eye on things as I used to (and there was great rejoicing), and my threshold for Wikidrama has lowered considerably. Anyway, that article needs work, if not simply merger into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, since the Judoon have only appeared in one story so far. -- khaosworks ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope people agree with me in that this page is getting too long, is it time for an Archive?-- Wiggstar69 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll have a go at adding some inlines over the weekend. Angmering 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thought I should bring Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy to people's attention. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You folks might like to keep an eye on the contribs of MrFijiax ( talk · contribs), who's recently been inserting a swathe of apparently spurious additions into various Doctor Who-related articles and lists.-- cjllw | TALK 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)