![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
As seen on my talk page, there has been some discussion over how Sarah Jane Adventures... things should be referred to. As in, stories or episodes or serials or what? I say stories personally. U-Mos ( talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: In the episode article overview table, should we be including K-9 and Company? It is an aired program in the universe as much as SJA and Torchwood? Lordandrei ( talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite project members to discuss the images for the Davros article at Talk:Davros#Images. Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I know this isn't a forum, but "hey c'mon" ;)
I'm not really a fan and have only been watching since Martha started, but I was intrigued by the "Bad Wolf" bit in "Turn Left". So I've been tracing the whole bad wolf thing back, and I know that Rose deposited the words throughout time & space after absorbing the heart of the tardis. What I don't get is why "Bad Wolf"? Why did the Daleks named there TV station "Bad Wolf", what's the origin of term? Ryan4314 ( talk) 17:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) OIC, cool, well cheers 4 the help. Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the WikiProject needs to have a definite method of determining whether a character counts as a companion in an episode, especially due to how the latest season has done things. Right now, Sarah Jane isn't counted as a companion in "School Reunion", and Mickey isn't counted as a companion in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday". However, other characters are credited in their appearances as companions despite not fulfilling the companion role, such as Jack in "The Empty Child" and Martha in "The Sontaran Strategem". Rose is credited as a companion in "Turn Left" merely because Billie Piper is credited as an episode star, despite Rose having no contact whatsoever with the Doctor throughout the episode. If Rose, Martha, and Jack are companions in the previously mentioned episodes, then Mickey and Sarah Jane should be in the episodes I mentioned, since characters don't have to be in the opening credits to be a companion. There seems to be a double standard going on. Thanks Ophois ( talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the "once a companion always a companion" - I think Harry Sullivan in The Android Invasion is a good example of why that is not the case. Who are the companions? Those stated to be companions by the people that make the show. The writers of the show choose companions all the time, and the only time people seem to have a problem with that is when they only appear in one story. Why can't someone be a companion for one story? If the writers say a character is a companion for one story, then they are a companion for one story. 86.154.185.86 ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
""So the prevailing logic is going to be that if they appear in the opening credits, they are Companions? That's a pretty big, evaluative decision. Evaluative as in a hop, skip and jump - and a train ride over the synthesis line. When we have citation specifically naming them as companions for the episode they appear in, then - and only then - should they be considered as such. Excluding Adam MonroeMitchell, who actually was a traveler with Rose, etc is some folk letting their fannish interests peek through. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with treating "Companion" as a description of a class of characters, rather than as a role in a given episode. It is useful, on an infobox level, which of these characters appear in an episode - simply put, even if Harry Sullivan returns and does not travel with the Doctor it is sufficiently significant that he appears that it is worth giving him a berth in the companions slot in the infobox. I mean, I'm trying to take a pragmatic approach here - generally speaking, it seems to me that someone interested in appearances of a given companion will not be served by information that tries to split hairs on the exact nature of the character's role in a given story. And it seems to me that plenty of people will be interested in appearances of a given companion. Ergo an inclusive solution that does not depend on fannish readings is ideal. Treating companions as a class of characters with an "if ever a companion, always a companion" attitude seems to me more informative and deferential to an out-of-universe perspective than any sort of hair-splitting. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A prod has been placed on the article Luke Smith. I tried to remove it, but it has been replaced. 86.154.185.86 ( talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1478 articles are assigned to this project, of which 290, or 19.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to inform members of this WikiProject that I have created episode citation guides for K-9 and Company, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures along the lines of those created for Doctor Who which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode citations. The guides for K-9 and Company and The Sarah Jane Adventures can both be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/The Sarah Jane Adventures episode citations and the guides for Torchwood can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Torchwood episode citations. I hope you find them useful. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A new editor, Ratzo ( talk · contribs), has created a page for Lynda Moss (that's "Lynda-with-a-y" from Bad Wolf and Parting of the Ways). I turned that into a redirect to Bad Wolf, per our usual policy for characters who appear in only one story and don't have substantial press coverage treating them as companions. Ratzo feels strongly that Lynda was a companion and should have her own page. I told him (on his talk page) that we operate by consensus, and so I invite other project members to express their views on whether Lynda was a companion and/or should have her own page; discussion could be here, or at Talk:Lynda Moss (Doctor Who), or at User talk:Ratzo#Lynda Moss. But remember not to bite the newbie! — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ratzo ( talk · contribs) has created a new category, Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures companions. I'm not sure this is terribly useful — it basically would mean "all the SJA characters except for Sarah and Alan Jackson". We've already got Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures characters. Is this new category helpful? Have Luke, Maria and Clyde been referred to as Sarah's "companions" in reliable sources? I'm not pushing for deletion of the category — I'd just like to hear some discussion of whether it's warranted. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Our energetic young friend Ratzo has suggested that it might be good if redirects like Sally Sparrow pointed to a list of minor characters, instead of towards the episode in which they appeared. I'm largely neutral on this notion, although I do worry that we've got a bit of listcruft going on with pages like List of Doctor Who henchmen. So... thoughts? (Including Ratzo — please join in!) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Having seen the articles listed under List of minor EastEnders characters and Minor characters in Star Wars, I could see the possibility of having under List of Doctor Who characters (currently used for redirecting to List of Doctor Who supporting characters) listings for a number of articles in the style of either; List of Doctor Who characters in Season 1 (1963-1964), List of Doctor Who characters in Season 26 (1989), List of Doctor Who characters in Series 4 (2008), etc.; or List of Doctor Who characters (First Doctor stories), List of Doctor Who characters (Tenth Doctor stories), etc.. (Obviously, Doctors, companions, villains etc. would just be listed with links to their main articles or entry on an existing link.) There's a wealth of reliable material that could be cited for this sort of information, including the official Doctor Who website, issues of Doctor Who Magazine, Gary Russell's Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia and Lesley Standring's The Doctor Who Illustrated A-Z. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside the issue that this is basically just a wikified version of drwhoguide.com, its title is both misleading and confusing -- especially when placed in the navbar. It's not an article about story chronology; it's a list of where tie-in works slot into the TV continuity. Although there is perhaps value to such an article (even in as huge and unwieldy a shape as this), it should be renamed for clarity. Again, this article is all about the tie-in works.
Something like "Expanded Doctor Who Continuity" would work. I propose a move to that name, or one like it.-- Aderack ( talk) 03:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Although it was quickly closed with a snowball speedy keep decision, the project should be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace (Doctor Who), an attempt a couple days ago at not only deleting Ace's article, but that of virtually every other companion as well. The nominator made the statement "there are many more articles that need to be deleted", and even one of the supporters for keeping suggested some of the "minor" companions (of course one must violate WP:NPOV to make that distinction, but no never mind) should lose their articles in favor of merging into a list. It's probably worth keeping an eye on the AFD page in case renominations are attempted or other DW-related articles become targets (I saw this happen before with some Star Trek articles: someone did a POINTY nomination that got slapped down, but it drew attention to the articles and additional articles ended up being nominated by others. That fact some of these articles actually have been registered as Good articles doesn't appear to render them immune, either. 23skidoo ( talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading the above discussion, it reinforces my personal decision to abandon Wikipedia with regards certain things and concentrate on editing the TARDIS Wikia site where they don't care about such things (at least not to the same extent). Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia about everything notable (and recurring characters on an internationally broadcast TV series are notable), yet along the way Wikipedia decided it wanted to become Britannica. If I wanted Britannica I wouldn't have kicked the encyclopedia salesman out the door when he paid me a visit. When the companion articles are deleted or merged, could someone be so kind as to notify the webmaster at www.drwhoguide.com? All the companion articles are cross-referenced from that website. Thanks. 23skidoo ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been put up for review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 6 81.157.235.65 ( talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my above prediction is coming true or not, but another character-related AFD has been launched: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (2nd nomination). 23skidoo ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Doctor Who participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena ( talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
A number of good faith uploads have occured from a Doctor who exhibitions, including Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Cyberman 01.jpg and Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Weeping Angel.jpg, these images likely fall outside the UK's freedom of panorama [3] and therefore are not free. This can cause havoc, copyrighted images that are being used may be deleted as replacable with free alternatives, and the "free" alternatives will be deleted as improper licence. If editors could keep an eye out for these images it will avoid a lot of trouble in the long run Fasach Nua ( talk) 09:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
First things first: I'm impressed with how much people have been following in my lead in writing articles. They're looking a lot better. So now, onto my request.
A thing I've always found difficult is finding reviews for the episodes. I have an abundance of production material (Confidential, podcast, the magazine, the companion that came out yesterday, and I'm going to get RTD's autobiography next month), but reviews tend to stump me. So this is a polite request: could you possibly find some reviews, and if possible, add them to the following articles in the style of what is done for " The Fires of Pompeii", " Planet of the Ood", and " The Stolen Earth"?:
Any other improvements (expansion of out-of-universe information and shortening of plots and continuity) will be gladly appreciated. My overall aim is to have a series four featured topic, though I am fully aware we cannot get that before mid-January at the earliest (if it takes two days to write about the Christmas special (which is a part of series 4), a week to GA review, and two weeks at FTC). We need four featured content articles (three of which should be the series list, Partners in Crime, and The Stolen Earth), regardless of if we include "Time Crash" and "Music of the Spheres" as ancillary episodes or not. Sceptre ( talk) 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Doctor Who participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is notice that The Stolen Earth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now a featured article. At approx 47.9KB, it's the third largest episode FA on Wikipedia (the top two are Through the Looking Glass (Lost) and Trapped in the Closet (South Park), at 49.1 and 48.7 kilobytes respectively). Hooray :) Sceptre ( talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the index for templates, and noticed that there is a duplicate with Template:Skaro Stories and Template:Skaro stories. 86.149.200.12 ( talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
By semi-canonical, I mean books and audio. At least 90% of these articles are stubs, and are unlikely to progress any further. I believe that we may be able to provide a more encyclopedic format in a list format similar to List of Heroes episodes, or Doctor Who (series 4). Of course, the really notable novels, such as Lungbarrow, or Human Nature, won't be merged. I'll keep this proposal open for several weeks because it's rather large in scale. Sceptre ( talk) 02:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion on the Chronology of the Doctor Who universe discussion page about minimising the amount of OR, etc, in that article (some of it necessary, IMO) that people may wish to contribute to. (There may be some who think the whole article should be deleted! :) But that discussion would probably best be held here.) Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently being proposed at WT:NFC: that fair-use images should only be allowed in commentary sections, in conjunction with specific externally-sourced comments, and should be prohibited from plot summary sections, and (presumably) infoboxes.
This seems to me to go way beyond the current restrictions of WP:NFC, and IMO is unnecessary and misguided.
Anyhow, discussion started here and has been recently revived here if anybody's interested. Jheald ( talk) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Luke Smith ( AfD) and Maria Jackson ( AfD) are currently going through articles for deletion discussions. If you have any views as to whether or not they should be deleted, please comment on the appropriate page. Thanks, Talk Islander 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on EDA novel could do with a book-cover.-- DrWho42 ( talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find if there is at least one reference in any of the Doctor Who novels or audio adventures. So far all I have turned up is a thread on Outpost Gallifrey's discussion forum. [4] Any pointers?-- DrWho42 ( talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi together, please head over to Talk:The Next Doctor#"Newspapers are not reliable sources" if you have some minutes and give your input on how to handle such info. Regards So Why 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The images for Alien Bodies and Demontage have been tagged for possible deletion. Could someone with a better grasp of the copyright issues look at them, and hopefully save them? Thanks. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The old perennial question of whether the Brigadier should be counted as a companion has come up again, this time in relation to the infoboxes. The discussion has been started at Talk:Doctor Who#Brigadier as companion?, so I suppose it had better stay there — this is just a heads up to any interested parties. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose merging the List of titled Doctor Who episodes into the List of Doctor Who serials. The former article contains very little additional information, which could easily be incorporated into the latter. This will make the latter article longer (though as a list, that's not as much of a concern as usual) - though not by as much as one would think initially, as many rows in the latter article are multiple lines long - but does get rid of an entire article.
I propose that instead of giving the number of episodes in the 'Episodes' column, we give the individual episode names, and give the individual transmission dates in the last column. Here is the first entry for the First Doctor (without the ref) as an example:
No | Title | Code | Episodes | Writer | Director | Original airdate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
001 |
An Unearthly Child aka 100,000 BC aka The Tribe of Gum |
A | "An Unearthly Child" "The Cave of Skulls" "The Forest of Fear" "The Firemaker" |
Anthony Coburn (and C. E. Webber) | Waris Hussein | 23 November 1963 30 November 1963 7 December 1963 14 December 1963 |
Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, if there are no objections within a week (or longer, if people think more time is appropriate), I'll make the change. Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 04:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we do with this? Is a major broadsheet newspaper a reliable-enough source? ╟─ Treasury§ Tag► contribs─╢ 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the featured list List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films currently has a clean up tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion 0422 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let people know, I came acroos King Gate ( talk · contribs), who appears to be adding false information to articles here and here 86.160.163.183 ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Part 2 of "Dayof the Clown" has already been aired, it needs updating!-- SGCommand ( talk • contribs)
So, I noticed this move on my watchlist almost an hour ago, and is it just me, or was there no discussion for this move? (I didn't see any on the talkpage, did I miss something above here?) Normally, I'd consider invoking the 'R' of WP:BRD, but... maybe it's worth a little discussion first? I'm not sure... I checked WP:THE, unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's completely clear on this situation. Personally, I wouldn't capitalize "The" in "the Doctor". Not sure what (if any) precise guidance might come from the BBC on this terminology; and I'm not seeing a guideline here on the project page. So... where does that leave us? umrguy 42 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This would help with something.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw the Noel Clarke article and thought it needs improving and possibly expanding. I've done some work to it but I feel it could be better. If anyone wants to help improve it, go ahead. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 10:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Heads up that Judgement of the Judoon is up for AFD. The nominator appears to be of the opinion that it's a novelisation, too. 23skidoo ( talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that Tennant's made his announcement, expect a swarm of unsourced guesses and outright nonsense postings regarding who the Eleventh Doctor will be. Since realistically it won't be till spring or more likely summer before the new actor is unveiled, I recommend protecting some of the pages where such nonsense is likely to be posted, such as Tenth Doctor. Also, I suggest protecting Eleventh Doctor (which is currently a redirect to the main Doctor article) to prevent someone changing it into an article full of unsourced speculation and/or nonsense. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
One of his kids edited the article recently to deny the smoking rumour - i just put in a clarification that it was David Brunt who claimed Pat was a chain-smoker and cancer survivor - of course since dead people can't sue for defamation, Brunt can say whatever he likes about Pat regardless of wether it's true or not. Paul Austin ( talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but I think it bears revisiting. The proposal is to merge the currently seperate articles for each episode of the new series multi-episode storylines into one. For example, instead of having seperate articles entitled Aliens of London and World War Three (Doctor Who), there would be one article called, for instance, Aliens of London and World War Three (no, this is not a title used by the BBC or other outside source, but then neither is 'World War Three (Doctor Who)'! - it's a Wikipedia article title). The benefit is to reduce the number of articles and eliminate a considerable amount of duplication. The combined article would also have a stronger claim to notability - though I agree that the current seperate articles have sufficient claims to notability in their own right, this view is not always shared amongst the wider Wikipedia community, and it is a good idea for such concerns to be preempted so far as possible. Additionally, it would make it consistent with our usage in List of Doctor Who serials, where we number the stories (said number appearing in the infobox). Against this is the fact that this would be a larger article (though still way under the recommended article size limit). This is mainly because of the merged plot section, but it would meet the recommended words per minute, and even here there is a fair amount of duplication. What do people think? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
One problem with this proposal is the question of what we would do with storylines like Utopia (Doctor Who), The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords, which some reliable sources treat as a three-part story and others treat as a one-parter followed by a two-parter. I'm also concerned that any title we use for a combined article would constitute original research. Following a pattern established by Big Finish isn't necessarily appropriate for the television series. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, seems consensus is against me! :) Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Stolen Earth and Journey's End for instance are very different episodes, with very different production concepts, and different reviews etc. etc.~ Zythe Talk to me! 12:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
In light of the deletion of the companions image, we should try to make sure that any other collages (such as Image:10dr19.jpg) have specific source information for all the images contained therein. Does anyone have an encyclopedic knowledge of old BBC publicity photos? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added 90 fair use rationales to image screenshots that were lacking them. That at least should prevent them from being tagged for speedy deletion. RMHED ( talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have undone several edits on this article, which I felt were not correct. They can be seen in this edit summary. Obviously, what I think isn't gospel, so discussion on these points would be welcome. I reinstated Martha's TW episodes, as her appearance in the capacity of a UNIT employee makes it a minor appearance. I moved The Christmas Invasion back to a major appearance, as the UNIT base was a primary setting for the episode and the organisation had a crucial part. I also moved Turn Left back to major, as Rose is working with UNIT, the TARDIS is at a UNIT base, and UNIT are seen in several of the seperate events in the episode. Finally, I moved Journey's End to a minor appearance as, regardless of its impact to the story, UNIT was only seen briefly. U-Mos ( talk) 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Upon relfection, I find myself agreeing on the Torchwood episodes. I have removed them again now. That only really leaves us agreeing on The Christmas Invasion. Even if Sontaran Stratagem is the "real" return of UNIT, I don't think we should be using the term "minor" that lightly. I feel it really should be reserved for very brief appearances, such as in the episodes currently listed as minor. The story didn't focus on UNIT, but it was far more substantial than a passing cameo. U-Mos ( talk) 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a split of this list at it's talk page to split it into 3 lists. Etron81 ( talk) 15:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion, and no consensus yet, whether a new reliable source quoting David Morrissey allows us to change the character's name in the infobox. Please provide your input at the talk page. Regards So Why 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the Chronology talk page about whether that article violates WP:SYNTH, to which people may wish to contribute. Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 07:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, today, November 23rd, is the 45th aniversary of Doctor Who, and, as a celebration, Doctor Who missing episodes was featured on the main page. Well done everyone, and keep up the good work! - weebiloobil ( talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm cutpasting an email I sent to User:Edokter about screenshots in infoboxes:
I was thinking about the images used in the episode articles. To be honest, they've got really crap rationales. I think we shouldn't rely just on the plot for a fair use image - we should use something where we can analyse the screenshot using as much information as we can.
Take, for example, Turn Left. It's a really crap rationale and caption compared to The Stolen Earth. Uploaders are really going the wrong way with rationales... and it looks stunted. I've thought of an image that would be immensely better: Rocco Colsanto being shipped off to a concentration camp. ( This shot) This is for four reasons:
- It accurately represents the dystopia in the plot as a result of the Doctor's lack of presence. (Plot)
- It accurately represents the "life during wartime" plot that Davies wrote. (Production)
- It was well received by critics (Reception)
- It can provide analysis in comparing the plot's depiction of dystopia with World War II (Production and Reception)
You see how easily I did that? I think FPAS has a point, to be honest: write the content, and the image should follow. Not the other way around. Doing it that way stunts the image, and ultimately, the article.
I couldn't say anything without repeating myself. Does anyone want to help with sorting out images so they reflect the whole article, and not just the plot? We'd get a lot of anti-fair-use people off of our backs; they're reasonable people, as are most editors. Sceptre ( talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a whole thing going on now with changes to the Manual of Style regarding how dates should be used in citation templates. I've updated the "Cite serial" template to reflect it - essentially, dates will now no longer be wikilinked, and by default they'll appear as, for example, "24 November 2008", as opposed to "November 24, 2008". Which is better for us anyway, I think. Shouldn't need to do anything to any pages using that template, they should update automatically; just wanted to explain the change in appearance. Unfortunately "cite episode" is locked, so until somebody updates that the two templates will display conflicting date formats. -- Brian Olsen ( talk) 02:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth putting in somewhere, but at the moment the earliest surviving and oldest living Doctor is Tom Baker - when he dies, the titles will be split again - the earliest surviving Doctor will be Peter Davison and the oldest living Doctor will be Colin Baker. Paul Austin ( talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The article
The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a
reassessment.
(
weebiloobil [nominator] asked the Doctor Who WikiProject be notified when the GA review was completed.) –
Whitehorse1
23:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Just having had a look at the Books section of each story - the numbering seems to be very confusing. The early books were numbered alphabetically, but is it wise to stick to this as a 'release number'? The War Games (No.70) is followed by Destiny of the Daleks (No.20). Surely you should just number them in the order they actually were released?-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a suggestion at the talk page for the DVD releases to split up the table by doctors for ease of navigation and editing. An example of what this woudl look like is in my sandbox. Please continue discussion on the talk page. Etron81 ( talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Some eyes on this proposal would be welcome. -- Rodhull andemu 23:26, 27 December 2008 (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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
As seen on my talk page, there has been some discussion over how Sarah Jane Adventures... things should be referred to. As in, stories or episodes or serials or what? I say stories personally. U-Mos ( talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: In the episode article overview table, should we be including K-9 and Company? It is an aired program in the universe as much as SJA and Torchwood? Lordandrei ( talk) 06:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite project members to discuss the images for the Davros article at Talk:Davros#Images. Thanks. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I know this isn't a forum, but "hey c'mon" ;)
I'm not really a fan and have only been watching since Martha started, but I was intrigued by the "Bad Wolf" bit in "Turn Left". So I've been tracing the whole bad wolf thing back, and I know that Rose deposited the words throughout time & space after absorbing the heart of the tardis. What I don't get is why "Bad Wolf"? Why did the Daleks named there TV station "Bad Wolf", what's the origin of term? Ryan4314 ( talk) 17:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) OIC, cool, well cheers 4 the help. Ryan4314 ( talk) 20:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the WikiProject needs to have a definite method of determining whether a character counts as a companion in an episode, especially due to how the latest season has done things. Right now, Sarah Jane isn't counted as a companion in "School Reunion", and Mickey isn't counted as a companion in "Army of Ghosts"/"Doomsday". However, other characters are credited in their appearances as companions despite not fulfilling the companion role, such as Jack in "The Empty Child" and Martha in "The Sontaran Strategem". Rose is credited as a companion in "Turn Left" merely because Billie Piper is credited as an episode star, despite Rose having no contact whatsoever with the Doctor throughout the episode. If Rose, Martha, and Jack are companions in the previously mentioned episodes, then Mickey and Sarah Jane should be in the episodes I mentioned, since characters don't have to be in the opening credits to be a companion. There seems to be a double standard going on. Thanks Ophois ( talk) 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with the "once a companion always a companion" - I think Harry Sullivan in The Android Invasion is a good example of why that is not the case. Who are the companions? Those stated to be companions by the people that make the show. The writers of the show choose companions all the time, and the only time people seem to have a problem with that is when they only appear in one story. Why can't someone be a companion for one story? If the writers say a character is a companion for one story, then they are a companion for one story. 86.154.185.86 ( talk) 18:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
""So the prevailing logic is going to be that if they appear in the opening credits, they are Companions? That's a pretty big, evaluative decision. Evaluative as in a hop, skip and jump - and a train ride over the synthesis line. When we have citation specifically naming them as companions for the episode they appear in, then - and only then - should they be considered as such. Excluding Adam MonroeMitchell, who actually was a traveler with Rose, etc is some folk letting their fannish interests peek through. -
Arcayne
(cast a spell)
01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with treating "Companion" as a description of a class of characters, rather than as a role in a given episode. It is useful, on an infobox level, which of these characters appear in an episode - simply put, even if Harry Sullivan returns and does not travel with the Doctor it is sufficiently significant that he appears that it is worth giving him a berth in the companions slot in the infobox. I mean, I'm trying to take a pragmatic approach here - generally speaking, it seems to me that someone interested in appearances of a given companion will not be served by information that tries to split hairs on the exact nature of the character's role in a given story. And it seems to me that plenty of people will be interested in appearances of a given companion. Ergo an inclusive solution that does not depend on fannish readings is ideal. Treating companions as a class of characters with an "if ever a companion, always a companion" attitude seems to me more informative and deferential to an out-of-universe perspective than any sort of hair-splitting. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
A prod has been placed on the article Luke Smith. I tried to remove it, but it has been replaced. 86.154.185.86 ( talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1478 articles are assigned to this project, of which 290, or 19.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to inform members of this WikiProject that I have created episode citation guides for K-9 and Company, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures along the lines of those created for Doctor Who which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode citations. The guides for K-9 and Company and The Sarah Jane Adventures can both be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/The Sarah Jane Adventures episode citations and the guides for Torchwood can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Torchwood episode citations. I hope you find them useful. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A new editor, Ratzo ( talk · contribs), has created a page for Lynda Moss (that's "Lynda-with-a-y" from Bad Wolf and Parting of the Ways). I turned that into a redirect to Bad Wolf, per our usual policy for characters who appear in only one story and don't have substantial press coverage treating them as companions. Ratzo feels strongly that Lynda was a companion and should have her own page. I told him (on his talk page) that we operate by consensus, and so I invite other project members to express their views on whether Lynda was a companion and/or should have her own page; discussion could be here, or at Talk:Lynda Moss (Doctor Who), or at User talk:Ratzo#Lynda Moss. But remember not to bite the newbie! — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ratzo ( talk · contribs) has created a new category, Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures companions. I'm not sure this is terribly useful — it basically would mean "all the SJA characters except for Sarah and Alan Jackson". We've already got Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures characters. Is this new category helpful? Have Luke, Maria and Clyde been referred to as Sarah's "companions" in reliable sources? I'm not pushing for deletion of the category — I'd just like to hear some discussion of whether it's warranted. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Our energetic young friend Ratzo has suggested that it might be good if redirects like Sally Sparrow pointed to a list of minor characters, instead of towards the episode in which they appeared. I'm largely neutral on this notion, although I do worry that we've got a bit of listcruft going on with pages like List of Doctor Who henchmen. So... thoughts? (Including Ratzo — please join in!) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Having seen the articles listed under List of minor EastEnders characters and Minor characters in Star Wars, I could see the possibility of having under List of Doctor Who characters (currently used for redirecting to List of Doctor Who supporting characters) listings for a number of articles in the style of either; List of Doctor Who characters in Season 1 (1963-1964), List of Doctor Who characters in Season 26 (1989), List of Doctor Who characters in Series 4 (2008), etc.; or List of Doctor Who characters (First Doctor stories), List of Doctor Who characters (Tenth Doctor stories), etc.. (Obviously, Doctors, companions, villains etc. would just be listed with links to their main articles or entry on an existing link.) There's a wealth of reliable material that could be cited for this sort of information, including the official Doctor Who website, issues of Doctor Who Magazine, Gary Russell's Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia and Lesley Standring's The Doctor Who Illustrated A-Z. Wolf of Fenric ( talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Putting aside the issue that this is basically just a wikified version of drwhoguide.com, its title is both misleading and confusing -- especially when placed in the navbar. It's not an article about story chronology; it's a list of where tie-in works slot into the TV continuity. Although there is perhaps value to such an article (even in as huge and unwieldy a shape as this), it should be renamed for clarity. Again, this article is all about the tie-in works.
Something like "Expanded Doctor Who Continuity" would work. I propose a move to that name, or one like it.-- Aderack ( talk) 03:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Although it was quickly closed with a snowball speedy keep decision, the project should be aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace (Doctor Who), an attempt a couple days ago at not only deleting Ace's article, but that of virtually every other companion as well. The nominator made the statement "there are many more articles that need to be deleted", and even one of the supporters for keeping suggested some of the "minor" companions (of course one must violate WP:NPOV to make that distinction, but no never mind) should lose their articles in favor of merging into a list. It's probably worth keeping an eye on the AFD page in case renominations are attempted or other DW-related articles become targets (I saw this happen before with some Star Trek articles: someone did a POINTY nomination that got slapped down, but it drew attention to the articles and additional articles ended up being nominated by others. That fact some of these articles actually have been registered as Good articles doesn't appear to render them immune, either. 23skidoo ( talk) 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Reading the above discussion, it reinforces my personal decision to abandon Wikipedia with regards certain things and concentrate on editing the TARDIS Wikia site where they don't care about such things (at least not to the same extent). Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia about everything notable (and recurring characters on an internationally broadcast TV series are notable), yet along the way Wikipedia decided it wanted to become Britannica. If I wanted Britannica I wouldn't have kicked the encyclopedia salesman out the door when he paid me a visit. When the companion articles are deleted or merged, could someone be so kind as to notify the webmaster at www.drwhoguide.com? All the companion articles are cross-referenced from that website. Thanks. 23skidoo ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been put up for review - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 6 81.157.235.65 ( talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my above prediction is coming true or not, but another character-related AFD has been launched: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (2nd nomination). 23skidoo ( talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Doctor Who participants... WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena ( talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
A number of good faith uploads have occured from a Doctor who exhibitions, including Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Cyberman 01.jpg and Image:2008-07-12 Dr.Who Weeping Angel.jpg, these images likely fall outside the UK's freedom of panorama [3] and therefore are not free. This can cause havoc, copyrighted images that are being used may be deleted as replacable with free alternatives, and the "free" alternatives will be deleted as improper licence. If editors could keep an eye out for these images it will avoid a lot of trouble in the long run Fasach Nua ( talk) 09:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
First things first: I'm impressed with how much people have been following in my lead in writing articles. They're looking a lot better. So now, onto my request.
A thing I've always found difficult is finding reviews for the episodes. I have an abundance of production material (Confidential, podcast, the magazine, the companion that came out yesterday, and I'm going to get RTD's autobiography next month), but reviews tend to stump me. So this is a polite request: could you possibly find some reviews, and if possible, add them to the following articles in the style of what is done for " The Fires of Pompeii", " Planet of the Ood", and " The Stolen Earth"?:
Any other improvements (expansion of out-of-universe information and shortening of plots and continuity) will be gladly appreciated. My overall aim is to have a series four featured topic, though I am fully aware we cannot get that before mid-January at the earliest (if it takes two days to write about the Christmas special (which is a part of series 4), a week to GA review, and two weeks at FTC). We need four featured content articles (three of which should be the series list, Partners in Crime, and The Stolen Earth), regardless of if we include "Time Crash" and "Music of the Spheres" as ancillary episodes or not. Sceptre ( talk) 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear WikiProject Doctor Who participants... WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA ( T) @ 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is notice that The Stolen Earth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now a featured article. At approx 47.9KB, it's the third largest episode FA on Wikipedia (the top two are Through the Looking Glass (Lost) and Trapped in the Closet (South Park), at 49.1 and 48.7 kilobytes respectively). Hooray :) Sceptre ( talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the index for templates, and noticed that there is a duplicate with Template:Skaro Stories and Template:Skaro stories. 86.149.200.12 ( talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
By semi-canonical, I mean books and audio. At least 90% of these articles are stubs, and are unlikely to progress any further. I believe that we may be able to provide a more encyclopedic format in a list format similar to List of Heroes episodes, or Doctor Who (series 4). Of course, the really notable novels, such as Lungbarrow, or Human Nature, won't be merged. I'll keep this proposal open for several weeks because it's rather large in scale. Sceptre ( talk) 02:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion on the Chronology of the Doctor Who universe discussion page about minimising the amount of OR, etc, in that article (some of it necessary, IMO) that people may wish to contribute to. (There may be some who think the whole article should be deleted! :) But that discussion would probably best be held here.) Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently being proposed at WT:NFC: that fair-use images should only be allowed in commentary sections, in conjunction with specific externally-sourced comments, and should be prohibited from plot summary sections, and (presumably) infoboxes.
This seems to me to go way beyond the current restrictions of WP:NFC, and IMO is unnecessary and misguided.
Anyhow, discussion started here and has been recently revived here if anybody's interested. Jheald ( talk) 09:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Luke Smith ( AfD) and Maria Jackson ( AfD) are currently going through articles for deletion discussions. If you have any views as to whether or not they should be deleted, please comment on the appropriate page. Thanks, Talk Islander 13:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article on EDA novel could do with a book-cover.-- DrWho42 ( talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find if there is at least one reference in any of the Doctor Who novels or audio adventures. So far all I have turned up is a thread on Outpost Gallifrey's discussion forum. [4] Any pointers?-- DrWho42 ( talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi together, please head over to Talk:The Next Doctor#"Newspapers are not reliable sources" if you have some minutes and give your input on how to handle such info. Regards So Why 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The images for Alien Bodies and Demontage have been tagged for possible deletion. Could someone with a better grasp of the copyright issues look at them, and hopefully save them? Thanks. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The old perennial question of whether the Brigadier should be counted as a companion has come up again, this time in relation to the infoboxes. The discussion has been started at Talk:Doctor Who#Brigadier as companion?, so I suppose it had better stay there — this is just a heads up to any interested parties. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose merging the List of titled Doctor Who episodes into the List of Doctor Who serials. The former article contains very little additional information, which could easily be incorporated into the latter. This will make the latter article longer (though as a list, that's not as much of a concern as usual) - though not by as much as one would think initially, as many rows in the latter article are multiple lines long - but does get rid of an entire article.
I propose that instead of giving the number of episodes in the 'Episodes' column, we give the individual episode names, and give the individual transmission dates in the last column. Here is the first entry for the First Doctor (without the ref) as an example:
No | Title | Code | Episodes | Writer | Director | Original airdate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
001 |
An Unearthly Child aka 100,000 BC aka The Tribe of Gum |
A | "An Unearthly Child" "The Cave of Skulls" "The Forest of Fear" "The Firemaker" |
Anthony Coburn (and C. E. Webber) | Waris Hussein | 23 November 1963 30 November 1963 7 December 1963 14 December 1963 |
Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, if there are no objections within a week (or longer, if people think more time is appropriate), I'll make the change. Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 04:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we do with this? Is a major broadsheet newspaper a reliable-enough source? ╟─ Treasury§ Tag► contribs─╢ 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the featured list List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films currently has a clean up tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion 0422 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to let people know, I came acroos King Gate ( talk · contribs), who appears to be adding false information to articles here and here 86.160.163.183 ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Part 2 of "Dayof the Clown" has already been aired, it needs updating!-- SGCommand ( talk • contribs)
So, I noticed this move on my watchlist almost an hour ago, and is it just me, or was there no discussion for this move? (I didn't see any on the talkpage, did I miss something above here?) Normally, I'd consider invoking the 'R' of WP:BRD, but... maybe it's worth a little discussion first? I'm not sure... I checked WP:THE, unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's completely clear on this situation. Personally, I wouldn't capitalize "The" in "the Doctor". Not sure what (if any) precise guidance might come from the BBC on this terminology; and I'm not seeing a guideline here on the project page. So... where does that leave us? umrguy 42 15:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This would help with something.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw the Noel Clarke article and thought it needs improving and possibly expanding. I've done some work to it but I feel it could be better. If anyone wants to help improve it, go ahead. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 10:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Heads up that Judgement of the Judoon is up for AFD. The nominator appears to be of the opinion that it's a novelisation, too. 23skidoo ( talk) 14:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Now that Tennant's made his announcement, expect a swarm of unsourced guesses and outright nonsense postings regarding who the Eleventh Doctor will be. Since realistically it won't be till spring or more likely summer before the new actor is unveiled, I recommend protecting some of the pages where such nonsense is likely to be posted, such as Tenth Doctor. Also, I suggest protecting Eleventh Doctor (which is currently a redirect to the main Doctor article) to prevent someone changing it into an article full of unsourced speculation and/or nonsense. 23skidoo ( talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
One of his kids edited the article recently to deny the smoking rumour - i just put in a clarification that it was David Brunt who claimed Pat was a chain-smoker and cancer survivor - of course since dead people can't sue for defamation, Brunt can say whatever he likes about Pat regardless of wether it's true or not. Paul Austin ( talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but I think it bears revisiting. The proposal is to merge the currently seperate articles for each episode of the new series multi-episode storylines into one. For example, instead of having seperate articles entitled Aliens of London and World War Three (Doctor Who), there would be one article called, for instance, Aliens of London and World War Three (no, this is not a title used by the BBC or other outside source, but then neither is 'World War Three (Doctor Who)'! - it's a Wikipedia article title). The benefit is to reduce the number of articles and eliminate a considerable amount of duplication. The combined article would also have a stronger claim to notability - though I agree that the current seperate articles have sufficient claims to notability in their own right, this view is not always shared amongst the wider Wikipedia community, and it is a good idea for such concerns to be preempted so far as possible. Additionally, it would make it consistent with our usage in List of Doctor Who serials, where we number the stories (said number appearing in the infobox). Against this is the fact that this would be a larger article (though still way under the recommended article size limit). This is mainly because of the merged plot section, but it would meet the recommended words per minute, and even here there is a fair amount of duplication. What do people think? Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
One problem with this proposal is the question of what we would do with storylines like Utopia (Doctor Who), The Sound of Drums and Last of the Time Lords, which some reliable sources treat as a three-part story and others treat as a one-parter followed by a two-parter. I'm also concerned that any title we use for a combined article would constitute original research. Following a pattern established by Big Finish isn't necessarily appropriate for the television series. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, seems consensus is against me! :) Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Stolen Earth and Journey's End for instance are very different episodes, with very different production concepts, and different reviews etc. etc.~ Zythe Talk to me! 12:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
In light of the deletion of the companions image, we should try to make sure that any other collages (such as Image:10dr19.jpg) have specific source information for all the images contained therein. Does anyone have an encyclopedic knowledge of old BBC publicity photos? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added 90 fair use rationales to image screenshots that were lacking them. That at least should prevent them from being tagged for speedy deletion. RMHED ( talk) 04:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have undone several edits on this article, which I felt were not correct. They can be seen in this edit summary. Obviously, what I think isn't gospel, so discussion on these points would be welcome. I reinstated Martha's TW episodes, as her appearance in the capacity of a UNIT employee makes it a minor appearance. I moved The Christmas Invasion back to a major appearance, as the UNIT base was a primary setting for the episode and the organisation had a crucial part. I also moved Turn Left back to major, as Rose is working with UNIT, the TARDIS is at a UNIT base, and UNIT are seen in several of the seperate events in the episode. Finally, I moved Journey's End to a minor appearance as, regardless of its impact to the story, UNIT was only seen briefly. U-Mos ( talk) 16:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Upon relfection, I find myself agreeing on the Torchwood episodes. I have removed them again now. That only really leaves us agreeing on The Christmas Invasion. Even if Sontaran Stratagem is the "real" return of UNIT, I don't think we should be using the term "minor" that lightly. I feel it really should be reserved for very brief appearances, such as in the episodes currently listed as minor. The story didn't focus on UNIT, but it was far more substantial than a passing cameo. U-Mos ( talk) 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed a split of this list at it's talk page to split it into 3 lists. Etron81 ( talk) 15:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion, and no consensus yet, whether a new reliable source quoting David Morrissey allows us to change the character's name in the infobox. Please provide your input at the talk page. Regards So Why 12:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion on the Chronology talk page about whether that article violates WP:SYNTH, to which people may wish to contribute. Cuddlyopedia ( talk) 07:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, today, November 23rd, is the 45th aniversary of Doctor Who, and, as a celebration, Doctor Who missing episodes was featured on the main page. Well done everyone, and keep up the good work! - weebiloobil ( talk) 10:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm cutpasting an email I sent to User:Edokter about screenshots in infoboxes:
I was thinking about the images used in the episode articles. To be honest, they've got really crap rationales. I think we shouldn't rely just on the plot for a fair use image - we should use something where we can analyse the screenshot using as much information as we can.
Take, for example, Turn Left. It's a really crap rationale and caption compared to The Stolen Earth. Uploaders are really going the wrong way with rationales... and it looks stunted. I've thought of an image that would be immensely better: Rocco Colsanto being shipped off to a concentration camp. ( This shot) This is for four reasons:
- It accurately represents the dystopia in the plot as a result of the Doctor's lack of presence. (Plot)
- It accurately represents the "life during wartime" plot that Davies wrote. (Production)
- It was well received by critics (Reception)
- It can provide analysis in comparing the plot's depiction of dystopia with World War II (Production and Reception)
You see how easily I did that? I think FPAS has a point, to be honest: write the content, and the image should follow. Not the other way around. Doing it that way stunts the image, and ultimately, the article.
I couldn't say anything without repeating myself. Does anyone want to help with sorting out images so they reflect the whole article, and not just the plot? We'd get a lot of anti-fair-use people off of our backs; they're reasonable people, as are most editors. Sceptre ( talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a whole thing going on now with changes to the Manual of Style regarding how dates should be used in citation templates. I've updated the "Cite serial" template to reflect it - essentially, dates will now no longer be wikilinked, and by default they'll appear as, for example, "24 November 2008", as opposed to "November 24, 2008". Which is better for us anyway, I think. Shouldn't need to do anything to any pages using that template, they should update automatically; just wanted to explain the change in appearance. Unfortunately "cite episode" is locked, so until somebody updates that the two templates will display conflicting date formats. -- Brian Olsen ( talk) 02:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is worth putting in somewhere, but at the moment the earliest surviving and oldest living Doctor is Tom Baker - when he dies, the titles will be split again - the earliest surviving Doctor will be Peter Davison and the oldest living Doctor will be Colin Baker. Paul Austin ( talk) 14:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The article
The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:The_Trial_of_a_Time_Lord for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a
reassessment.
(
weebiloobil [nominator] asked the Doctor Who WikiProject be notified when the GA review was completed.) –
Whitehorse1
23:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Just having had a look at the Books section of each story - the numbering seems to be very confusing. The early books were numbered alphabetically, but is it wise to stick to this as a 'release number'? The War Games (No.70) is followed by Destiny of the Daleks (No.20). Surely you should just number them in the order they actually were released?-- Tuzapicabit ( talk) 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a suggestion at the talk page for the DVD releases to split up the table by doctors for ease of navigation and editing. An example of what this woudl look like is in my sandbox. Please continue discussion on the talk page. Etron81 ( talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Some eyes on this proposal would be welcome. -- Rodhull andemu 23:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)