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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 |
In the past few series (at least in 7), the BBC had provided a title card for each episode, making it the clear ideal candidate for a NFC image to identify the episode within the infobox (meeting the general standard of WP:NFCI#1. In S9, I have not seen this practice continued, so I do see editors pulling a screencap from the episode as a infobox image (for example Face the Raven). However, I have noticed that media sites reviewing the episode seem to have a clear promotional image to identify the episode (eg: [1] for the same ep). I would strongly recommend that if the BBC does not pull out a title card, that these promo images be used instead since if the BBC is letting other press use that to ID the episode, that works for our purposes. To contrast, the current image on this is one that can be easily considered unnecessary since it shows elements that are easily described in text or other free images. I have not fully explored the BBC site to see what media images they do offer per episode but I suspect that you'd be able to find those images there too. -- MASEM ( t) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The standard which seems to have been set for New Series infobox images is to use photographs/screen grabs rather than artistic representations, so the Radio Times posters would be a departure from that. Whether that would be a good thing or not is debatable. For encyclopaedic articles, I'm not sure that 'looking nicer' should be a determining factor. Wikipedia isn't completely blind to aesthetic considerations, but I would venture that there are more important considerations to be taken into account. Bowdenford ( talk) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I trying to simplyfy navigation by removing unnecessary groups in several navboxes, (ie. {{
Dalek stories}}), but am reverted by a single editor (and an IP) that don't get the message and demand consensus, but no counter arguments. So let's settle this here. I think the grouping by Doctor is unnecessary and basically cruft. It does not aid navigation and only bloats the template, as it often results in one episode per group. So barring any valid objections, I will reinstate my edits by the end of the week. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)You ask me to explain my position then criticise me for doing it. That you consider my response to constitute a 'wall of text' is your opinion, to which you are entitled but with which I disagree. I have taken the space required to set out my arguments in a logical fashion, using formatting, paragraphs and indenting to assist the reader. In any event, this is irrelevant to the points at hand.
So yes, in the absence of a consensus view you are, of course, entirely free to edit navboxes in any way you see fit at any time you choose. Just like me, then. Bowdenford ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I reckon, to make the infoboxes for Doctor Who episodes say Doctors, as opposed to Doctor (singular) when the is more than one Doctor in an episode, that the paramters are changed slightly, by possibly adding a doctor2 parmeter, or the existing parameter becomes the place for the incumbent Doctor only, while a new parameter, called doctor_extra or something, is added for the Doctor(s) who was(were) either not the incumbent Doctor or the Doctor who was not the main Doctor for the episode, e.g. the newly regenerated Doctor at the end of an epsiode for example, the Twelfth Doctor in "The Time of the Doctor". Theoosmond( talk)( warn) 20:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Reference Guide link in this template should be to: http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm
The existing link gives an error message (e.g. see the article Zeta Major). This affects a LOT of articles. I don't know how to fix it, but I hoped someone here might. Robina Fox ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
20:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)The picture in the infobox for the Fourth Doctor article has been deleted. The Byzantine rules for pics have always been impenetrable for me so if any of you can add a new pic that meets the guidelines that would be wonderful. Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD| Talk 15:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we really count the actors who played companions as "stars", when not even the Radio Times did that? See recent edits at Doctor Who (season 20) and The Trial of a Time Lord. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 00:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There is an ongoing debate over the configuration of series 9 episodes on the series 9 talk page. AlexTheWhovian is confident that a single statement from DWM proves that episodes 11 and 12 are not a two-part story, despite the evidence from many other official sources (most notably the DVD and DW Extra releases) that state otherwise. Several IP users and myself believe that he has interpreted the DWM source incorrectly, hence his point of view on this debate. Could some project members please contribute to this discussion? Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I My user name is Gen. Quon, and I'm a user pretty active in the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time fandoms ( I also a Who fan). Anyway, I have a request. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis that focuses on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. I'm particularly interested in how fan editors aggregate and define 'canon'. Are there any editors here that would be willing to partake in a short (roughly 10) question interview via email or talk page? Thanks so much!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all your insights here. I have a hypothetical question to pose. Say that there is some bit of 'canon' reported by third-party sources, but Russell T. Davies, or Steven Moffat (or whoever else) makes a statement that contradicts what has been established. Would it be protocol to merely say in an article, "In X piece of media, this factoid is reported to have happened, but in an interview, showrunner Z said that this is not the case"?
For the 2005-on Doctor Who Series articles the Prev/next series is not displaying, even though it's in the code - the Classic Season articles display fine - not sure what's going on here? Is there a way to fix it? -- Etron81 ( talk) 23:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
|prev_series=
and |next_series=
are not valid parameters in {{
Infobox television season}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
|prev_series=
and |next_series=
[3]
Dresken (
talk)
00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all! Etron81 ( talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone added a quote presumably by Lance Parkin for the article on the 2002 Eighth Doctor novel Trading Futures but neglected to add the source? Does anyone know where it comes from?-- DrWho42 ( talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up to fellow editors in the Doctor Who WikiProject, there are editors who are not familiar with the show debating on changing the classic "seasons" to "series" at Template talk:Infobox television#Number of series/seasons (slightly further down the discussion). Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether or not "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are a two-parter and I would like to invite users to contribute. Fan4Life ( talk) 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
A number of pages for serials in the Classic series have been moved by In ictu oculi ( talk · contribs), apparently without discussion:
In each case the resultant redirect has been left "as is", without repurposing the article title. Should these be moved back? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion about episode groupings is still on-going but is only between two editors including myself. I would like to invite users to join in to help reach a consensus. Fan4Life ( talk) 20:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on a report for the Signpost. Would anyone on WikiProject Doctor Who like to talk about their work here? Please ping me or reply here. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed the recently-created section The Mind of Evil#Literary Criticism, added by Stephen Poppitt ( talk · contribs)? It seems to me that this is almost entirely original research, not what Wikipedia is about at all. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I direct the project to the discussion at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Bill's inclusion? I've not received a reply to my latest entry here, and although users continue to revert Bill being added to the article I have not seen anyone providing a rationale as to why beyond "she hasn't appeared yet". I don't see why that means we should ignore the plethora of verifiable sources for this information. U-Mos ( talk) 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed quite a few classic series episodes are attracting a certain amount of fancruft--Peri's bikini is 'the first seen since Sarah Jane Smith' was a doozy (my removal note says "now please take a cold shower"), but I'm not all that clear about what should be there sometimes. For the new series, editors appear to have been insisting on sources for every detail, but many of the classic series story articles are entirely unsourced, including the continuity. Also, some editors seem to be treating the books, comic books, audio plays, etc. as being about equal with the TV series, including follow-ups there. If that's allowed, surely the Continuity sections spiral completely out of control. I've heard of there having been some sort of discussion where the rules were set up for this, could someone point me in that direction? ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I visited the the Doctor article and noticed that the infobox listed all of the actors who have portrayed The Doctor in the series, and Hurt was in a sub-section of that list. Can someone explain how someone who portrayed The Doctor in the series is not included in a list of the people portraying the character? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 19:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The articles listing doctor who comic stories is massively out of date there's no mention of Titan comics in the 3rd 4th 8th 10th or 11th doctor articles and the articles on the 12th and 2nd doctor don't even exist 95.150.111.115 ( talk) 09:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 31 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see The Tenth Planet#Music release. It is a mess MOS wise. OTOH it looks to have be supported by refs (though I could be wrong.) I can't tell if it should be spun off into its own article or just cleaned up by those of you who know what needs to be done. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
ref}}
and {{
endnote}}
by using {{
efn}}
and {{
notelist}}
instead. If desired, the {{
notelist}}
can be moved slightly further down the page - but it cannot appear after the existing {{
Reflist}}
. Similarly with
Space Adventures – Music from 'Doctor Who' 1963–1968#Track listing although in the latter case it has meant quadruplication of the sentence "This recording does not actually feature in Doctor Who and was only included due to inaccurate or incomplete documentation." --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the liner notes, which is the fallback on this matter, only mention a few episodes offhand. Unfortunately this leads to the tendency for original research/synthesis, as seen here. I think that the column should be removed as it's trivia. Comments? DonQuixote ( talk) 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello.You may want to have a look at the aforementioned article which has just been created and subsequently PRODed. This actor is mainly remembered for playing Sladden in the BBC mini-serial Quatermass and the Pit, and he has played significant parts in 3 Doctor Who serials, along with numerous parts in numerous television shows. So there is some notability, and no doubt if this project thinks he is notable, he will stick. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I need a second opinion on whether or not this website could be a potential reliable source, that can be used for this WikProject. It looks like it might be a site compiled by a fan, however, I've used this site a lot, and there is little room to doubt it's authenticity. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)#Requested move 18 April 2017. The requested move discussion concerns whether "(Doctor Who)" is or is not required in the title of the article for the character. -- Alex TW 12:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I remember reading The Book of the Still back in the day but it has been recently nominated for proposed deletion. Does anyone think they can impprove the article to acceptable notability guidelines?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( 📼) 20:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 31/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Doctor Who, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to create a topic-specific Welcome template for Whovians? I, for one, would use it to welcome new editors.- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( 📼) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I have opened up a Conflict of interest investigation into the recent edits to the Eighth Doctor Adventures article. If anyone is interested in joining the discussion, feel free to express your input and insight into the matter.- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( 📼) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Just letting other members of the WikiProject Doctor Who know that I have begun to restore the references for release dates of home media at List of Doctor Who home video releases. Afterwards, they should stay permanently, and not be removed after the media are released. There is no reason to do so, as the home media themselves cannot become primary sources for their release dates, unlike episodes and their credits. Cheers. -- Alex TW 14:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Placing a section here in case anyone want to continue discussions that have been occurring on episode talk pages about continuity sections: Talk:Empress of Mars Talk:Knock Knock (Doctor Who) Talk:Oxygen (Doctor Who). Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 11:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
[6]. I don't think I agree 1400 words seems way too long. Anyone else have some thoughts? Also anyone have any problem with removing this from our WP:WHO/MOS "A common length is approximately ten words per minute, however this can be lengthened in the case of a complicated plot." and just relying on WP:TVPLOT. Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 11:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've spent a little time marking up issues in the black and white classic episodes and also the different Doctor articles so there is actually somewhere to go and find things to do. I'm hoping it will be helpful to better maintain articles as some issues have been around for a very long time. Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion that may be of interest to members of this wikiproject at Talk:Tom Baker (English actor) § Page Move.-- Trystan ( talk) 17:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
An IP is adding events to the plot section of The Tenth Planet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that occur at the end of The Doctor Falls. It is akin to what happened after "The Name of the Doctor" aired. I have started a thread on the talk page and any input that anyone wishes to add will be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 01:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Doctor Who episode head, Template:Doctor Who episode body, Template:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead & Template:DoctorWhoEpisodeBody have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Has anybody else seen this? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that Jodie Whittaker is currently classed as "Low-importance" in WikiProject Doctor Who. That seems incongruous for an actor who will be the lead - should it be higher importance, or does that have to wait until her episodes start to air? -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 05:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The on target site formerly at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb/OnTarget/ has been down for a VERY long time (I think a year) - it used to go down between terms I think but came back in a month or two - it has not returned for some time. I was a very useful resource - does anyone know its status or if it has been archived anywhere? Almost every classic serial page links to it. Etron81 ( talk) 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is still down - is there a mirror/archive somewhere or do we need to start removing dead links? Etron81 ( talk) 22:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
some images seem to be missing still, but it's still better than nothing! Etron81 ( talk) 22:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
just wondering why there is no list of 12th doctor comics while the comics of the other 11 are listed 95.145.155.227 ( talk) 17:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Speaking to "Twice Upon a Time" (the latest special), while it follows in continuity directly from "The Doctor Falls", it also has significant plot hooks, more than just a reuse of casting, back to The Tenth Planet and "Hell Bent" (with plot elements from those coming back into play in "Twice"). In "Twice" we can call back to those (and source that), but it seems to me that it feels like "Twice" should be mentioned in both Tenth Planet and "Hell Bent", using the sources to explain why "Twice" is important in the show's continuity for them. But, I know this is not usually done so I'm trying to brainstorm if this makes sense and if so, where best to put that information in an episode article. -- Masem ( t) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
About that scene in the Mind Robber where Zoe is clinging to the console and the camera lingers on Wendy Padbury's, um, prominent rear. has there been any scholarly or professional or feminist essays or critique on the implications of that scene (sexism, objectification, the gender politics)? And, if so, can a summary of the debate be added to the Mind Robber article? Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 11:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#List of Doctor Who serials. -- Alex TW 06:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This appears in the leads of a bunch of articles, and while it is technically true, for articles dealing specifically with the revived series it can be rather awkward unless readers come to the articles with prior knowledge of the franchise.
Clara Oswald for instance, doesn't mention that the show was cancelled and then revived a decade and some later, but runs straight from calling it a long-running series into saying she was introduced in "December 2012 in the show's seventh series". If a reader took this literally they would think "Wait, if it was in its seventh series five years ago, then it's only been running for about 12 years; that's not all that long".
Anyone think it would be better to say "in the seventh series of the modern revival of the show" or something? (I know my specific suggestion is rather clunky; I suspect this has probably been discussed before but no one could come up with a succinct and piffy way to write so we defaulted to the worst option because everyone disagreed with it equally.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:William-Hartnell.jpg This file has been uploaded as Creative Commons, but is actually copyrighted to the BBC. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 05:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The current image is undoubtedly more suitable because the page is about William Hartnell, not about Hartnell's portrayal of the Doctor. Having said that (and possibly muddying the waters now!), since the picture it replaced was a BBC image issued at the time (1965) for publicity purposes and wasn't being used for commercial gain, wouldn't that mean there's no violation of copyright? Cybersub ( talk) 17:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
[7] ? Eye of Tranquility / black hole energy cores? Is that what Omega built? -- 70.51.203.56 ( talk) 06:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed this at Doctor Who: The Snowmen/The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe (soundtrack). On examination, they probably should be merged into their respective articles per Survival (Doctor Who)#Soundtrack release. DonQuixote ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that many episodes, such as Girl in the Fireplace, include questionable use of screenshots. If you see an image that appears to fail WP:NFCC, please nominate it for discussion. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This is just a notice that there is a draft for Segun Akinola at Draft:Segun Akinola until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex TW 16:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
BBC America aired the reconstruction of Shada (Doctor Who) on Thursday July 19. We need to form a WP:CONSENSUS on how this is to be handled in the article. For me this is not a broadcast of the original episodes since they were never completed so it doesn't belong in the infobox or the opening sentence. The later mention in the lead is fine as is the mention of the broadcast in the article. I just feel that this reconstruction is a different item from the original planned serial. For one thing it is not broken into six parts. There are also changes to the planned story including the fact that prisoners were to include an Ice Warrior and a Zygon. These are just my thoughts (and I my be off base in them) and input from the rest of you will be necessary to shape the info in the article. Thanks ahead of time for your input. MarnetteD| Talk 00:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Can a better photo be substituted, perhaps the Air Australia purple flight attendant uniform? Whoever used the "Yugoslavian prostitute" outfit from Resurrection clearly needs to take a cold shower. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this WP:UNDUE? Maybe the whole paragraph should be cut right back. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Are the episode table/list templates the best solution for these lists? removing the sorting function I think is a loss if one is looking for all audiobooks by a certain author, reader, doctor, etc. I also think combining the TV story number and target numbers in the same field is needlessly confusing. Should these table revert o what they were before ? be divided by publisher/doctor? something else? whated to get an idea of consensus before continuing. Etron81 ( talk) 11:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
In February 2017, AlexTheWhovian replaced the infobox images of all classic seasons (excluding The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord) from the show's logo to the DVD cover of the season's first serial (see here for an example). This appears to have been done without consensus, so I'd like to seek a general opinion of the matter here. I find that the DVD cover is not an accurate representation of the season, simply the first episode—cases such as season 12 and 19, where we have new season set releases, are an exception. – Rhain ☔ 11:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
If someone deletes from an article information which they call "unimportant" or "irrelevant", which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...(now read the bottom of the list, in which it is not exhaustive), one should not dispute other unrelated edits due to just being disgruntled.) -- Alex TW 11:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've started to add {{ Television episode ratings/consolidated}} to the revived series articles, including overnight data, consolidated differences and overnight/consolidated ranks. I'll likely only be doing these for the later series, where DWN has reported the ratings, as it became incredibly hard to find overnight data for the earlier series (mostly 1-4, and I still can't find overnight data for "Army of Ghosts" / "Doomsday"). Cheers. -- Alex TW 05:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#New Year episodes and classic Doctor Who. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Concerning the release of the classic era seasons on Blu-ray, what images should we use in the infobox in the season articles? The current images as shown at
Doctor Who (season 12) and
Doctor Who (season 19) are the covers to the disc-box within the collection-box itself, with the "Doctor Who: The Collection - Season X" text, which has the same image as the plain image for the collection-box. However, if we compare these to the booklets included for
Season 12,
Season 18 and
Season 19, we see that the booklets are more detailed, and provide a different colour scheme for each season article's base colours (per
MOS:TV#Formatting, colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons.
); the concern for this arises from
Season 18's newest cover, which is very similar to Season 12 and 19. If we get a release for every season of the classic era, then we're going to end up with a lot of articles using the same blue/purple scheme. --
Alex
TW
07:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the beginning and end dates of the Eighth Doctor's tenure that may be of interest to the project. It can be found at Talk:Eighth Doctor#Release date of the Doctor Who film, and tenure of the Eighth Doctor. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 13:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello project, please take a look at the move proposal at Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#Requested move 3 January 2019. Thanks, U-Mos ( talk) 01:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paternoster Gang (audio drama). -- / Alex/ 21 12:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Do the spin-offs or novelisation ever give Midge or Squeak's real names? If it was Millicent or Rosie, i can tell why she went by Squeak... Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 |
In the past few series (at least in 7), the BBC had provided a title card for each episode, making it the clear ideal candidate for a NFC image to identify the episode within the infobox (meeting the general standard of WP:NFCI#1. In S9, I have not seen this practice continued, so I do see editors pulling a screencap from the episode as a infobox image (for example Face the Raven). However, I have noticed that media sites reviewing the episode seem to have a clear promotional image to identify the episode (eg: [1] for the same ep). I would strongly recommend that if the BBC does not pull out a title card, that these promo images be used instead since if the BBC is letting other press use that to ID the episode, that works for our purposes. To contrast, the current image on this is one that can be easily considered unnecessary since it shows elements that are easily described in text or other free images. I have not fully explored the BBC site to see what media images they do offer per episode but I suspect that you'd be able to find those images there too. -- MASEM ( t) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The standard which seems to have been set for New Series infobox images is to use photographs/screen grabs rather than artistic representations, so the Radio Times posters would be a departure from that. Whether that would be a good thing or not is debatable. For encyclopaedic articles, I'm not sure that 'looking nicer' should be a determining factor. Wikipedia isn't completely blind to aesthetic considerations, but I would venture that there are more important considerations to be taken into account. Bowdenford ( talk) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I trying to simplyfy navigation by removing unnecessary groups in several navboxes, (ie. {{
Dalek stories}}), but am reverted by a single editor (and an IP) that don't get the message and demand consensus, but no counter arguments. So let's settle this here. I think the grouping by Doctor is unnecessary and basically cruft. It does not aid navigation and only bloats the template, as it often results in one episode per group. So barring any valid objections, I will reinstate my edits by the end of the week. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)You ask me to explain my position then criticise me for doing it. That you consider my response to constitute a 'wall of text' is your opinion, to which you are entitled but with which I disagree. I have taken the space required to set out my arguments in a logical fashion, using formatting, paragraphs and indenting to assist the reader. In any event, this is irrelevant to the points at hand.
So yes, in the absence of a consensus view you are, of course, entirely free to edit navboxes in any way you see fit at any time you choose. Just like me, then. Bowdenford ( talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I reckon, to make the infoboxes for Doctor Who episodes say Doctors, as opposed to Doctor (singular) when the is more than one Doctor in an episode, that the paramters are changed slightly, by possibly adding a doctor2 parmeter, or the existing parameter becomes the place for the incumbent Doctor only, while a new parameter, called doctor_extra or something, is added for the Doctor(s) who was(were) either not the incumbent Doctor or the Doctor who was not the main Doctor for the episode, e.g. the newly regenerated Doctor at the end of an epsiode for example, the Twelfth Doctor in "The Time of the Doctor". Theoosmond( talk)( warn) 20:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Reference Guide link in this template should be to: http://www.drwhoguide.com/who.htm
The existing link gives an error message (e.g. see the article Zeta Major). This affects a LOT of articles. I don't know how to fix it, but I hoped someone here might. Robina Fox ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
|id=
parameter. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
20:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)The picture in the infobox for the Fourth Doctor article has been deleted. The Byzantine rules for pics have always been impenetrable for me so if any of you can add a new pic that meets the guidelines that would be wonderful. Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD| Talk 15:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we really count the actors who played companions as "stars", when not even the Radio Times did that? See recent edits at Doctor Who (season 20) and The Trial of a Time Lord. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 00:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There is an ongoing debate over the configuration of series 9 episodes on the series 9 talk page. AlexTheWhovian is confident that a single statement from DWM proves that episodes 11 and 12 are not a two-part story, despite the evidence from many other official sources (most notably the DVD and DW Extra releases) that state otherwise. Several IP users and myself believe that he has interpreted the DWM source incorrectly, hence his point of view on this debate. Could some project members please contribute to this discussion? Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I My user name is Gen. Quon, and I'm a user pretty active in the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time fandoms ( I also a Who fan). Anyway, I have a request. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis that focuses on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. I'm particularly interested in how fan editors aggregate and define 'canon'. Are there any editors here that would be willing to partake in a short (roughly 10) question interview via email or talk page? Thanks so much!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all your insights here. I have a hypothetical question to pose. Say that there is some bit of 'canon' reported by third-party sources, but Russell T. Davies, or Steven Moffat (or whoever else) makes a statement that contradicts what has been established. Would it be protocol to merely say in an article, "In X piece of media, this factoid is reported to have happened, but in an interview, showrunner Z said that this is not the case"?
For the 2005-on Doctor Who Series articles the Prev/next series is not displaying, even though it's in the code - the Classic Season articles display fine - not sure what's going on here? Is there a way to fix it? -- Etron81 ( talk) 23:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
|prev_series=
and |next_series=
are not valid parameters in {{
Infobox television season}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
|prev_series=
and |next_series=
[3]
Dresken (
talk)
00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all! Etron81 ( talk) 00:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone added a quote presumably by Lance Parkin for the article on the 2002 Eighth Doctor novel Trading Futures but neglected to add the source? Does anyone know where it comes from?-- DrWho42 ( talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up to fellow editors in the Doctor Who WikiProject, there are editors who are not familiar with the show debating on changing the classic "seasons" to "series" at Template talk:Infobox television#Number of series/seasons (slightly further down the discussion). Alex|The|Whovian ? 13:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether or not "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are a two-parter and I would like to invite users to contribute. Fan4Life ( talk) 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
A number of pages for serials in the Classic series have been moved by In ictu oculi ( talk · contribs), apparently without discussion:
In each case the resultant redirect has been left "as is", without repurposing the article title. Should these be moved back? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion about episode groupings is still on-going but is only between two editors including myself. I would like to invite users to join in to help reach a consensus. Fan4Life ( talk) 20:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on a report for the Signpost. Would anyone on WikiProject Doctor Who like to talk about their work here? Please ping me or reply here. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 03:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anybody else noticed the recently-created section The Mind of Evil#Literary Criticism, added by Stephen Poppitt ( talk · contribs)? It seems to me that this is almost entirely original research, not what Wikipedia is about at all. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I direct the project to the discussion at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Bill's inclusion? I've not received a reply to my latest entry here, and although users continue to revert Bill being added to the article I have not seen anyone providing a rationale as to why beyond "she hasn't appeared yet". I don't see why that means we should ignore the plethora of verifiable sources for this information. U-Mos ( talk) 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed quite a few classic series episodes are attracting a certain amount of fancruft--Peri's bikini is 'the first seen since Sarah Jane Smith' was a doozy (my removal note says "now please take a cold shower"), but I'm not all that clear about what should be there sometimes. For the new series, editors appear to have been insisting on sources for every detail, but many of the classic series story articles are entirely unsourced, including the continuity. Also, some editors seem to be treating the books, comic books, audio plays, etc. as being about equal with the TV series, including follow-ups there. If that's allowed, surely the Continuity sections spiral completely out of control. I've heard of there having been some sort of discussion where the rules were set up for this, could someone point me in that direction? ZarhanFastfire ( talk) 05:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I visited the the Doctor article and noticed that the infobox listed all of the actors who have portrayed The Doctor in the series, and Hurt was in a sub-section of that list. Can someone explain how someone who portrayed The Doctor in the series is not included in a list of the people portraying the character? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 19:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The articles listing doctor who comic stories is massively out of date there's no mention of Titan comics in the 3rd 4th 8th 10th or 11th doctor articles and the articles on the 12th and 2nd doctor don't even exist 95.150.111.115 ( talk) 09:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 31 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see The Tenth Planet#Music release. It is a mess MOS wise. OTOH it looks to have be supported by refs (though I could be wrong.) I can't tell if it should be spun off into its own article or just cleaned up by those of you who know what needs to be done. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
ref}}
and {{
endnote}}
by using {{
efn}}
and {{
notelist}}
instead. If desired, the {{
notelist}}
can be moved slightly further down the page - but it cannot appear after the existing {{
Reflist}}
. Similarly with
Space Adventures – Music from 'Doctor Who' 1963–1968#Track listing although in the latter case it has meant quadruplication of the sentence "This recording does not actually feature in Doctor Who and was only included due to inaccurate or incomplete documentation." --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the liner notes, which is the fallback on this matter, only mention a few episodes offhand. Unfortunately this leads to the tendency for original research/synthesis, as seen here. I think that the column should be removed as it's trivia. Comments? DonQuixote ( talk) 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello.You may want to have a look at the aforementioned article which has just been created and subsequently PRODed. This actor is mainly remembered for playing Sladden in the BBC mini-serial Quatermass and the Pit, and he has played significant parts in 3 Doctor Who serials, along with numerous parts in numerous television shows. So there is some notability, and no doubt if this project thinks he is notable, he will stick. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I need a second opinion on whether or not this website could be a potential reliable source, that can be used for this WikProject. It looks like it might be a site compiled by a fan, however, I've used this site a lot, and there is little room to doubt it's authenticity. Boomer Vial Holla! We gonna ball! 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)#Requested move 18 April 2017. The requested move discussion concerns whether "(Doctor Who)" is or is not required in the title of the article for the character. -- Alex TW 12:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I remember reading The Book of the Still back in the day but it has been recently nominated for proposed deletion. Does anyone think they can impprove the article to acceptable notability guidelines?- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( 📼) 20:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 31/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Doctor Who, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be worthwhile to create a topic-specific Welcome template for Whovians? I, for one, would use it to welcome new editors.- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( 📼) 03:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I have opened up a Conflict of interest investigation into the recent edits to the Eighth Doctor Adventures article. If anyone is interested in joining the discussion, feel free to express your input and insight into the matter.- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( 📼) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Just letting other members of the WikiProject Doctor Who know that I have begun to restore the references for release dates of home media at List of Doctor Who home video releases. Afterwards, they should stay permanently, and not be removed after the media are released. There is no reason to do so, as the home media themselves cannot become primary sources for their release dates, unlike episodes and their credits. Cheers. -- Alex TW 14:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Placing a section here in case anyone want to continue discussions that have been occurring on episode talk pages about continuity sections: Talk:Empress of Mars Talk:Knock Knock (Doctor Who) Talk:Oxygen (Doctor Who). Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 11:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
[6]. I don't think I agree 1400 words seems way too long. Anyone else have some thoughts? Also anyone have any problem with removing this from our WP:WHO/MOS "A common length is approximately ten words per minute, however this can be lengthened in the case of a complicated plot." and just relying on WP:TVPLOT. Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 11:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've spent a little time marking up issues in the black and white classic episodes and also the different Doctor articles so there is actually somewhere to go and find things to do. I'm hoping it will be helpful to better maintain articles as some issues have been around for a very long time. Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 01:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion that may be of interest to members of this wikiproject at Talk:Tom Baker (English actor) § Page Move.-- Trystan ( talk) 17:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
An IP is adding events to the plot section of The Tenth Planet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that occur at the end of The Doctor Falls. It is akin to what happened after "The Name of the Doctor" aired. I have started a thread on the talk page and any input that anyone wishes to add will be appreciated. MarnetteD| Talk 01:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Doctor Who episode head, Template:Doctor Who episode body, Template:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead & Template:DoctorWhoEpisodeBody have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cheers, Dresken ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Has anybody else seen this? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I notice that Jodie Whittaker is currently classed as "Low-importance" in WikiProject Doctor Who. That seems incongruous for an actor who will be the lead - should it be higher importance, or does that have to wait until her episodes start to air? -- Gronk Oz ( talk) 05:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The on target site formerly at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb/OnTarget/ has been down for a VERY long time (I think a year) - it used to go down between terms I think but came back in a month or two - it has not returned for some time. I was a very useful resource - does anyone know its status or if it has been archived anywhere? Almost every classic serial page links to it. Etron81 ( talk) 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is still down - is there a mirror/archive somewhere or do we need to start removing dead links? Etron81 ( talk) 22:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
some images seem to be missing still, but it's still better than nothing! Etron81 ( talk) 22:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
just wondering why there is no list of 12th doctor comics while the comics of the other 11 are listed 95.145.155.227 ( talk) 17:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Speaking to "Twice Upon a Time" (the latest special), while it follows in continuity directly from "The Doctor Falls", it also has significant plot hooks, more than just a reuse of casting, back to The Tenth Planet and "Hell Bent" (with plot elements from those coming back into play in "Twice"). In "Twice" we can call back to those (and source that), but it seems to me that it feels like "Twice" should be mentioned in both Tenth Planet and "Hell Bent", using the sources to explain why "Twice" is important in the show's continuity for them. But, I know this is not usually done so I'm trying to brainstorm if this makes sense and if so, where best to put that information in an episode article. -- Masem ( t) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
About that scene in the Mind Robber where Zoe is clinging to the console and the camera lingers on Wendy Padbury's, um, prominent rear. has there been any scholarly or professional or feminist essays or critique on the implications of that scene (sexism, objectification, the gender politics)? And, if so, can a summary of the debate be added to the Mind Robber article? Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 11:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#List of Doctor Who serials. -- Alex TW 06:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This appears in the leads of a bunch of articles, and while it is technically true, for articles dealing specifically with the revived series it can be rather awkward unless readers come to the articles with prior knowledge of the franchise.
Clara Oswald for instance, doesn't mention that the show was cancelled and then revived a decade and some later, but runs straight from calling it a long-running series into saying she was introduced in "December 2012 in the show's seventh series". If a reader took this literally they would think "Wait, if it was in its seventh series five years ago, then it's only been running for about 12 years; that's not all that long".
Anyone think it would be better to say "in the seventh series of the modern revival of the show" or something? (I know my specific suggestion is rather clunky; I suspect this has probably been discussed before but no one could come up with a succinct and piffy way to write so we defaulted to the worst option because everyone disagreed with it equally.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
File:William-Hartnell.jpg This file has been uploaded as Creative Commons, but is actually copyrighted to the BBC. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 05:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The current image is undoubtedly more suitable because the page is about William Hartnell, not about Hartnell's portrayal of the Doctor. Having said that (and possibly muddying the waters now!), since the picture it replaced was a BBC image issued at the time (1965) for publicity purposes and wasn't being used for commercial gain, wouldn't that mean there's no violation of copyright? Cybersub ( talk) 17:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
[7] ? Eye of Tranquility / black hole energy cores? Is that what Omega built? -- 70.51.203.56 ( talk) 06:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed this at Doctor Who: The Snowmen/The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe (soundtrack). On examination, they probably should be merged into their respective articles per Survival (Doctor Who)#Soundtrack release. DonQuixote ( talk) 15:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that many episodes, such as Girl in the Fireplace, include questionable use of screenshots. If you see an image that appears to fail WP:NFCC, please nominate it for discussion. Thank you. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
This is just a notice that there is a draft for Segun Akinola at Draft:Segun Akinola until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex TW 16:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
BBC America aired the reconstruction of Shada (Doctor Who) on Thursday July 19. We need to form a WP:CONSENSUS on how this is to be handled in the article. For me this is not a broadcast of the original episodes since they were never completed so it doesn't belong in the infobox or the opening sentence. The later mention in the lead is fine as is the mention of the broadcast in the article. I just feel that this reconstruction is a different item from the original planned serial. For one thing it is not broken into six parts. There are also changes to the planned story including the fact that prisoners were to include an Ice Warrior and a Zygon. These are just my thoughts (and I my be off base in them) and input from the rest of you will be necessary to shape the info in the article. Thanks ahead of time for your input. MarnetteD| Talk 00:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Can a better photo be substituted, perhaps the Air Australia purple flight attendant uniform? Whoever used the "Yugoslavian prostitute" outfit from Resurrection clearly needs to take a cold shower. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this WP:UNDUE? Maybe the whole paragraph should be cut right back. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Are the episode table/list templates the best solution for these lists? removing the sorting function I think is a loss if one is looking for all audiobooks by a certain author, reader, doctor, etc. I also think combining the TV story number and target numbers in the same field is needlessly confusing. Should these table revert o what they were before ? be divided by publisher/doctor? something else? whated to get an idea of consensus before continuing. Etron81 ( talk) 11:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
In February 2017, AlexTheWhovian replaced the infobox images of all classic seasons (excluding The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord) from the show's logo to the DVD cover of the season's first serial (see here for an example). This appears to have been done without consensus, so I'd like to seek a general opinion of the matter here. I find that the DVD cover is not an accurate representation of the season, simply the first episode—cases such as season 12 and 19, where we have new season set releases, are an exception. – Rhain ☔ 11:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
If someone deletes from an article information which they call "unimportant" or "irrelevant", which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...(now read the bottom of the list, in which it is not exhaustive), one should not dispute other unrelated edits due to just being disgruntled.) -- Alex TW 11:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've started to add {{ Television episode ratings/consolidated}} to the revived series articles, including overnight data, consolidated differences and overnight/consolidated ranks. I'll likely only be doing these for the later series, where DWN has reported the ratings, as it became incredibly hard to find overnight data for the earlier series (mostly 1-4, and I still can't find overnight data for "Army of Ghosts" / "Doomsday"). Cheers. -- Alex TW 05:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#New Year episodes and classic Doctor Who. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 09:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Concerning the release of the classic era seasons on Blu-ray, what images should we use in the infobox in the season articles? The current images as shown at
Doctor Who (season 12) and
Doctor Who (season 19) are the covers to the disc-box within the collection-box itself, with the "Doctor Who: The Collection - Season X" text, which has the same image as the plain image for the collection-box. However, if we compare these to the booklets included for
Season 12,
Season 18 and
Season 19, we see that the booklets are more detailed, and provide a different colour scheme for each season article's base colours (per
MOS:TV#Formatting, colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons.
); the concern for this arises from
Season 18's newest cover, which is very similar to Season 12 and 19. If we get a release for every season of the classic era, then we're going to end up with a lot of articles using the same blue/purple scheme. --
Alex
TW
07:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the beginning and end dates of the Eighth Doctor's tenure that may be of interest to the project. It can be found at Talk:Eighth Doctor#Release date of the Doctor Who film, and tenure of the Eighth Doctor. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 13:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello project, please take a look at the move proposal at Talk:List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials#Requested move 3 January 2019. Thanks, U-Mos ( talk) 01:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paternoster Gang (audio drama). -- / Alex/ 21 12:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Do the spin-offs or novelisation ever give Midge or Squeak's real names? If it was Millicent or Rosie, i can tell why she went by Squeak... Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)