Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 18

; Archives
	Archive index; 5 April 2005 – 26 May 2005; 21 May 2005 – 23 September 2005; 17 September 2005 – 27 December 2005; 31 December 2005 – 20 January 2006; 19 January 2006 – 27 February 2006; 27 February 2006 - 16 April 2006; 16 April 2006 – 9 July 2006; 6 July 2006 – 5 August 2006; 9 July 2006 – 24 October 2006; 23 October 2006 – 30 December 2006; 30 December 2006 – 30 January 2007; 31 January 2007 – 30 April 2007; 1 May 2007 - 15 June 2007; 16 June 2007 - 15 August 2007; 16 August 2007 - 26 September 2007; 25 September 2007 - 10 December 2007; 11 December 2007 - 31 January 2008; 1 February 2008 - 30 April 2008; 31 April 2008 - 16 July 2008; 17 July 2008 - December 2008;

This page 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.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 February 2008 and 30 April 2008. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

10
13
14
15
16
17
Archive 18
19
20
21
22
23
30

Torchwood titles

Two new Torchwood pages have gone up. I don't know if they are sourced or not. The titles are Death Comes to Torchwood and Day in the Death of. I have proded them because I feel the may be sourced, but feel free to change that to speedy if they are not. i have already notified the author. Stuart DD _{contributions} 13:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Finish web site change

The Big Finish guide pages have been changed, so the URL's for the Audios and others will need to be changed. here is the main monthly series page - clicking on a picture will display the page. I'll do some now, but I don't have the time to do them all. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now managed to do all the spin off series, but I haven't done the books, special releases or most of the Monthly releases, so can people please help with them. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the books done now. Stuart DD _{contributions} 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Two (relatively) New articles

I've noticed articles on Earth (Doctor Who) and Plasmavore on wikipedia. If we are going to have tham, can someone please help the creators out with the articles. Stuart DD _{contributions} 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate saying it, but they should go. Plasmavore is already covered in List of Doctor Who villains#Florence Finnegan, and DW's Earth is at List of Doctor Who planets#E. The Plasmavore article is also laden with original research, and too much images. — Edokter • Talk • 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected the "Earth" article; looks like "Plasmavore" has already been redirected. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I redirected it, but HomerSimpson08 (talk · contribs) has reverted it already. — Edokter • Talk • 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

New Torchwood pages

Some one has created the articles Something Borrowed (Torchwood), From out of the Rain, Adrift (Torchwood), Fragments (Torchwood) and Exit Wounds (Torchwood). Do we have sources for these? Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

AFD'd. Including A Day in the Death. Probably get speedy kept though, because of that bullshit AC injunction which isn't supposed to apply to speculation but does anyway. Will ^(talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They are now sourced from Brief History. I've notified the discussion. Stuart DD _{contributions} 18:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Although the injunction may be "bullshit" I get the feeling not everyone understands its implications. If the ruling ends up in favor of the deletionists, then we can kiss all the episode articles goodbye and not even bother to create new ones based upon upcoming episodes. 23skidoo (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I Understand that perfectly well. Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying on this. I wasn't intending to imply that you personally didn't understand. I was referring to the somewhat blase attitude I've been seeing in general about this arbitration and its possible consequences. 23skidoo (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who spin-offs

This article is a mess. It should really be split into two articles: one on actual spin-offs of the show (K-9, Torchwood, SJA, Bernice Summerfield, the BBV videos, etc.), and another titled "Doctor Who in other media". The latter would contain all the discussion of novels, audio plays, comics, and other non-televised dramatic presentations of Doctor Who. Aderack (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're presuming 'spin-off' to mean a sequel or followup series that excludes the Doctor; however, it's my understanding that the term within fandom includes Doctor Who stories in a non-televised capacity. Anyone else care to comment? Radagast (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image up for deletion - distinguishing actor from character

I've just had Image:Donna s4.jpg flagged for deletion. I attempted to emphasize that the article it illustrates is of a fictional character (ie, that living person in costume/in character), making the image much harder to replace or obtain free; the admin in question, however, replied on my talk page that 'The photo has virtually nothing that distinguishes it and provides no more value to the article than a free photo would.'

To me, this makes a slippery slope; the implication is that any character that looks enough like their actor can have an nonfree image removed because there isn't enough visual difference. How do you folks feel on this? Radagast (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and practice is to allow promo photos in character articles. Besides, anyone who's seen the Cath Tate show will know that her Lauren persona is much more recognised. Will ^(talk) 19:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another few GAs.

If everyone committed themselves to article writing, we'd soon have all the serial pages at GA ;) Will ^(talk) 22:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And Army of Ghosts is now a GA. Woohoo! Will ^(talk) 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

2007 Hugo Award featured topic

Image deletion - what, WHAT?

[1] What the Hell's this about, why are loads of article images being deleted because the author requests deletion? That's absurd, it's happened a lot recently. Is there a simple explanation for this, am I missing something O_O ? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That image is non-free. Are any free images being deleted on request? --TS 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I requested deletion because I thought adding a rationale would be too much trouble than getting a new image. Will ^(talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely a new image will also have to have a rationale? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but rationales are absolutely terrible to provide a year after you've uploaded it. Will ^(talk) 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense. You can just add a rationale. There's nothing wrong with that. And surely it's easier to do that than to get a new image? ^anemone│_projectors 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a spate of Doctor Who images being targeted for and having been successfully deleted.

Recently on the companion front I've had to find replacement images for Steven Taylor, Liz Shaw, Jo Grant, Turlough and Peri Brown. Meanwhile, on the story front I've had to find replacement images for "Mission to the Unknown", The Faceless Ones, The Enemy of the World, The Krotons, The Ambassadors of Death, The Dæmons, Day of the Daleks, The Mutants, The Time Monster, The Creature from the Pit, Warriors' Gate, Snakedance, Warriors of the Deep, The Awakening, Dragonfire, "The Christmas Invasion" and "Smith and Jones".

To my mind, many of the original images were fine. People should tighten rationales first before deleting. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've hopefully sorted "The Shakespeare Code". Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd rather have an actual screenshot. I can undelete on request, Will only has to say the word. — Edokter • Talk • 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That wallpaper is a screenshot as oppose to a publicity photograph. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with a genuine screenshot more illustrative of plot events. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI - Plot reductions on serials

I should note that I've been slowly working through and reducing the plot of each of the new serials; most of the previous plots were rather lengthy covering every detail and in some cases, excessive emotional/flowery (I'll note that those that have passed GAs do have more appropriate plots). In some cases, this requires significant reordering of events within the episode to make concise descriptions of what occurs. These probably (likely? :-) need copyedits of the new plot. --MASEM 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest we consider breaking up long plot summaries on serial articles into brief summaries of each of their respective episodes or parts? Considering the likes of "Aliens of London"/"World War Three" and "Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood" have separate articles for each episode of one story, I don't think it's unreasonable to divide the plot sections by episode on serial articles.

For example the plot section for An Unearthly Child would be divided up into "An Unearthly Child", "The Cave of Skulls", "The Forest of Fear" and "The Firemaker", that for The Savages would be divided up into "Episode 1", "Episode 2", "Episode 3" and "Episode 4", that for Terror of the Autons would be divided up into "Episode One", "Episode Two", "Episode Three" and "Episode Four" and that for The Time Warrior would be divided up into "Part One", "Part Two", "Part Three" and "Part Four". Some articles already have lines that divide each episode, (for example, The Two Doctors), so this seems a natural progression.

Just to stress, I'm not suggesting make an individual article for each episode, nor am I proposing lengthening the plot sections. I merely think that dividing up the plot sections into episode summaries would provide a better format and encourage editors to provide overviews rather than blow-by-blow accounts - excellent examples of which are available here, which the articles all helpfully are linked to under 'External links'. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the sub-serials are named like the early days, I can certainly see that, however, given that the serials begin and end on cliffhangers, which, if you try to write to encyclopedically, can lead to the flowery writing, one should be careful about this. I see no problem "altering" the events slightly to push a cliffhanger and conclusion into one section. For example if Aliens of London/WW3 were old-series serials, I would mention that the Doctor manages to escape from the meeting at the end as part of describing AoL. However, this may take some experimentation. (new serials are easy, you just say it's a cliffhanger :-) --MASEM 02:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Many 'serials' did not end on cliffhangers, merely the episodes within these serials. If the idea is to condense the plot sections, then the recap of events at the start of later episodes within a serial need not be detailed. The description of the plot of later episodes in a serial should begin with the first new material, i.e. the resolution of the cliffhanger onwards not the cliffhanger itself. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more layout changes

Pretagging this as a MiszaBot exception (done on Feb 28 08). 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Old sections	New sections		Justification
Old sections	Lvl. 2 header	Lvl. 3 header	Justification
Plot	Plot	Synopsis	The continuity links are really a lot to do with the plot, rather than anything else. The synopsis header will give us an old style with a useful synopsis in its place.
Continuity	Plot	Continuity
Cast	{Infobox}		Just to standardise with other TV articles to be honest, while keeping a bit of individuality for how the cast is organised. Some relevant cast notes (such as Agyeman's appearance as Adeola getting her the companion billing as Martha) can be put in conception.
Outside references	Production	Conception	This is a large change. For most episodes, we can write about two or three paragraphs about at least the conception and filming of the story - such exists on Shannon Sullivan and the Discontinuity Guide. Outside references which have been explicitly confirmed by reliable sources (e.g. Shannon, Discontinuity for all, Commentary for the new set of episodes) should be folded into the "conception" part as it's about the writing.
Production		Filming
Music		Music
Pre-broadcast publicity	Broadcast and reception	Publicity and broadcast	I actually don't think it's a good idea to remove the "pre-broadcast publicity" section just because the episode has already aired - Doctor Who is one of the most popular British terrestrial and US cable TV shows, and such publicity might give a hand into establishing it's notability and it's importance over a few weeks or months. The rest is sequential - we can add reviews of what people think and lump that to release of the books due to (or not) it's popularity with the critics. The headers can be tinkered with a lot more - for Doomsday, for example, there was a media blackout before 1/7/06, whereas for an episode of Sarah Jane, it might be light on the reviews.
Broadcast, reception, and release	Broadcast and reception	Critical reception and later release

Thoughts? Will ^(talk) 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the new section headings sound a little clumsy - e.g. Continuity to other stories and Critical reception and later release. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really agree with "Continuity" being put under plot, as some refer to other episodes. I would also suggest a less complicated title for the release section. I agree that the cast notes should be moved, especially as most of such notes are already in other sections. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in many circumstances, the continuity directly relates to an earlier plot point, perhaps 20 serials or years ago. Like the Seventh Doctor's reply to Ace about the Daleks taking control of Earth in the 22nd century. Will ^(talk) 13:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes work. Although Continuity notes usually refer to other stories, the Plot of the story being discussed should be the jumping off point, so it still fits. All in all I think it's a more professional look. It even allows for a bit more freedom when individual articles require their own sub-headers, while still maintaining a project-wide consistent look in the headers.--Brian Olsen (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We need some wider input on this issue. I'm keeping it away from MiszaBot until a consensus emerges or until June. This is a big change. Will ^(talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposed rewrite to the MOS can be seen here. Will ^(talk) 15:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like continuity being put under plot and I think that putting guest stars in the infobox makes it look really crowded and untidy.--Wiggs (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I dissagree about "putting guest stars in the infobox makes it look really crowded and untidy". I like it. If we do a vote I'm for!--I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood UNIT stories

Reset and Dead Man Walking have been put on Template:UNIT Stories. I haven't got round to watching these yet, so i'm not sure if that's accurate or not. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It just means they've got Martha in them, so it's basically inaccurate. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Martha's working as UNIT liason to Toechwood, but that's it. No other UNIT links whatsoever. Will ^(talk) 15:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Scarcely even that - it just looks like Jack asked her over to do some work... it should be taken out of the templat.e Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Martha is working for UNIT, so I'd be inclined to leave them in - maybe shift them to Minor Appearances as it is just her working for UNIT with Torchwood. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well DID ask on the discussion page before I put "Reset" there. I didn't get a response so I went with it. In my opinion "Dead Man Walking" isn't really an instance but "Reset" is because they make use of UNIT information and UNIT is discussed and described in the episode. --GracieLizzie (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess we just didn't happen to be watching Template talk:UNIT Stories, then :-) I don't think either really count. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a proper UNIT story until blokes in berets and uniform show up and fire hundreds of rounds at a monster, with absolutely no effect whatever. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jack asked Martha for a UNIT beret. :P Anyway I still think Reset counts as at least a minor appearence, theres enough there for it to count. --GracieLizzie (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

List AfD'd

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who. Totnesmartin (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A funny kudo from Variety

From a recent article (archived here) on the upcoming US broadcast of Season 4: "...Doctor Who" has fandom on its side, with a loyal viewership so fanatical that most of the show's entry on Wikipedia actually appears to be correct." LOL. 23skidoo (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that made me smile too. --GracieLizzie (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this 23skidoo. The wikipedia Doctor Who pages have received compliments on a couple of the commentaries on the DVD's of various stories, although I can't remember which ones right now. Kudos to all who work on these. MarnetteD | Talk 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ecellent! I'm going to post that link in every AfD from now on. :) — Edokter • Talk • 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Agency AFD

Time Agency has been nominated for Deletion - feel free to leave comments. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Red link, looks like it was deleted. Digifiend (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism image

someone has uploaded Image:Nazi cyberman.jpg - a vandalism immage - that is up for deletion Stuart DD _{contributions} 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Image deleted, uploader indef blocked. — Edokter • Talk • 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood Magazine

Torchwood Magazine has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchwood Magazine (also posted to the Torchwood WikiProject, but I noticed that a tag there suggests that it is inactive) Stephenb (Talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AFDs and episode/character articles

It appears that ArbCom has come down with some sort of ruling regarding Episode and character AFDs, but to be honest except for the fact a certain editor (who appears to have been quite prolific in nominating such articles for AFD) I have no idea what impact this may have on TV-related articles. Here's the decision; maybe someone can make sense of it. It doesn't seem to change the fact that there are factions on Wikipedia who feel articles on individual episodes and characters from TV are inappropriate unless they have scholarly works written about them. As it happens, that actually is the case with at least some Doctor Who serials (see "Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text" for example), but obviously you won't find that with a lot of other episodes and characters. What I dislike is it seems people want us to pick and choose, doing articles only on notable episodes. Which of course violates NPOV and NOR because it requires a judgement call on what episodes are notable, and it also goes against Wikipedia's fast-disappearing spirit of inclusion. I only recently discovered the Wikia websites devoted to individual TV shows and the like, and with none of the restrictions and elitism Wikipedia has I've been spending more time editing those pages than working on Wikipedia in recent weeks. And I think a lot of folks are going to be abandoning Wikipedia to places like Wikia if the will of a small number (claiming "consensus") continue to make this an unpleasant place to contribute to. I've even received communication from one Wikipedia head basically pointing out to me that Wikipedians have only two rights: the right to fork (whatever the hell that means) and the right to leave. I think a lot of folks are exercising the latter. 23skidoo (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the decision, which appears to be a resolution to ban one editor from deleting/redirecting character/episode articles and let disputes resolve themselves using the standard Wikipedia mechanisms (which possibly haven't worked that well thus far!). As an inclusionist, I agree with your general sentiments about elitism and the recent unwelcoming nature of Wikipedia, but I can't (yet) see how this decision will affect Doctor Who articles; probably too early to tell. Forking, AFAIK, is taking a copy of the Wikipedia database and/or code and running the copy as a new (not mirrored) site, such as Citizendium. Stephenb (Talk) 10:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just crazy - I think I'll be joining those leaving any time soon. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Replying to Stephenb) My first impression, though, is that some elements may be seeing the resolution of the decision as a licence to kill (AFD) episode and character articles wholesale. Under some of the criteria I've been seeing kicked around at the end of the day all we'll be allowed is List of Doctor Who episodes (without any graphics, of course), and maybe, possibly, Doctor (Doctor Who) if someone quickly writes a Ph.D thesis on the character that gets published by Oxford University Press. (Actually, snide remarks aside, Doctor Who The Unfolding Text does actually qualify as the type of scholarly work that the elitists are demanding.) Oh and the "Winds of delete" are also gathering regarding so-called "non-notable novels" which, under so-called policy (which is not policy at all but guidelines) would pretty much eliminate every Doctor Who novel article. The Novels WikiProject is fighting that trend, but even within it there are factions who have questioned whether we should only be covering "literature". I'm with StuartDD that if this keeps going I'll have no reason to contribute here any longer. As it is I spend more time at the spin-off Wikis like the Bionic and Terminator wikis where no one cares about notability and no one's head explodes if you post an image that doesn't first have fifty forms signed in triplate which have been buried in soft peat for three months (with nod to Douglas Adams). 23skidoo (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Kenneth Muir's Critical History of Doctor Who on Television could be useful as well in supporting articles for at least the classic series episodes.Rlendog (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To show you what we're up against, I call your attention to new AFD nomination for an episode of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, see here. Never minding the content of the article, which does need improvement, look at the rationale for the AFD and at least one of the delete votes under it. Basically someone is trying to interpret or create policy regarding the episode not being notable on the grounds that no one has written about it yet in what I assume would be a Wikipedia-approved venue. This exact same rationale could be used to disqualify any articles on Series 3 and 4 of the revived Doctor Who and probably every Torchwood episode as well, or at least season 2 as one of the comments on the TSCC nomination seems to suggest that a DVD release with commentary would render that episode notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I agree that episode articles should be more than just plot summaries. But this is still insane. A lot of people are abandoning the main Wikipedia for the spin-off, unaffiliated wikis dedicated to specific topics. Maybe the time has come for use to follow the lead of Star Trek's Memory Alpha, say to heck with Wikipedia, and start a Doctor Who wiki where we're free to do whatever we want in our coverage of the DW franchise. 23skidoo (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest both; build a resource here, but use the specialized wikis for any infiormation which you find is not easily allowed here. the reason is that in some cases, you may find that Wikipedia can be more productive and/or lenient than those specialized wikis, even on even on items directly related to those spec. wikis subject matter. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd not bother making a dramatic exit, myself, it's not worth the fuss :-S —TreasuryTag talk contribs 18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, i just realized something; did you say to start a Docotr Who wiki? there already is one; it is located at the following website. it is quite good. thanks. http://tardis.wikia.com --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

we know it... and most here hate it (I know i do). It seems devoid of any real information and filled only with the type of fancruft we delete on daily basis here. — Edokter • Talk • 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

that's fine. but then that shows why it's useful, doesn't it? anything that can't go in here, can go in there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists in the infobox

I've noticed the recent changes regarding cast lists in the newer articles, and I see they're starting to trickle backwards from the TV movie. One question, though - where did we come up with the design? I can't say I'm an fan, as the bullets-and-dashes treatment completely conflicts with the infobox layout and design. It also clashes with the approach taken by other episode articles, and with film articles. Can we halt the move until this is resolved and redesigned? --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a wonderful move that should be adapted by more Wikiprojects. That's what infoboxes are for - not the arbritrary facts of some, but rather the purposeful assimilation of valuable information that does not easily find another place within the article. The "cast" sections are by nature, messy, and any "casting notes" can go towardsa a more encyclopdic "production" section.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually like this format better than other formats. For example, in "Through the Looking Glass", who does Julie Bowen play? Will ^(talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I confess... I'm solely responsible for the design within the infobox. However, we should not strive to "be like other projects". Every so often, a project should rise from the rest and make a bold change so that other projects may follow... OK, I'm rambling, but you get the idea; we should get stuck in the ways of other projects. — Edokter • Talk • 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems an enthousiastic IP had begun backwards from the movie (I don't have those on my watchlist), but put the Actor - Character the wrong way round, so I reverted those. I don't know how far he went back though. I myself actually started my way forward, starting with "Rose", as well as prosing all the lists. I got Series 1 info boxes done... only prosed two episodes so far. — Edokter • Talk • 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When the Doctor Who project first attempted to move the cast lists into the infobox several months ago they were like the Lost episode noted and linked by Will above - confusing and unreadable. At the time I stated that it would be preferable to skip GA and FA status for articles rather then have the infobox jammed with confusion. Edoktor has provided a workable and elegant solution. The cast lists now make sense. I still prefer less rather than more items in an infobox but I know that the consensus does not agree with that. I would like to thank Edoktor for his work on these and if the Doctor Who project needs to present their own consensus to show why our cast lists in the infoboxes are different from other wikipages let me cast my support right now for the way Edoktor has presented them. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support having the characters' names in there as well, but what about putting them in parantheses, to match how we list the Doctors and companions? I think it helps with readability a bit. With the dashes, I might not know at first glance which of Camille Coduri and Jackie Taylor is the actor or character. For example... --Brian Olsen (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset)I should have stated that I'm fine with having the cast in the box; it's just the layout that needs work. (No disrespect to Edokter, since you actually went to the trouble of being bold and getting it done. Thanks for that.) Trying something new is good, too - it is just that what we have, doesn't work with the object it is placed in. I think we should either find a way to present the information we want within the existing design and layout, or else propose changes to the overall box that suit the new look. For now, at the very least, I think that we should use parentheses instead of dashes, and find some way around the use of bullets. Otherwise, there is one section of the box, in one sub-section of the television articles, that uses bullets-and-dashes, while most others don't. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't necessarely have to use bullets or dashes. Just try and experiment without them, or using different formatting (use < br/ > instead). The guests= field is pretty much an open box; the bullets are just there for the automative linewrapping. I might go and create a template to format cast lists that can be used everywhere, as there are may different styles and layouts in use. — Edokter • Talk • 12:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example without the bullets. — Edokter • Talk • 16:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the web designer in me thinks that we should use, well, unordered lists for lists, but it's a moot point seeing as how Wikipedia is screwy on semantic HTML anyway - I'm okay either way. Will ^(talk) 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to make it line up properly with the second column, and still have each actor on their own line? Maybe shorten the wording for "Executive producer(s)" and "Originally broadcast" so that there's more room? --Brian Olsen (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just played around with my idea in my sandbox, and it looked kind of horrible. All squashed together. Never mind... --Brian Olsen (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a little something to think about, some articles have both an infobox cast list and an article cast list (see Casablanca (film)). DonQuixote (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What about just using the same formatting as the other fiedls, such as here? --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The main problem is that it cramps everything into the right column, which is why I made the change in the template (to spread the cast over two columns) in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the 'Guest Star' section should be called that, as that gives the impression of the people listed appearing in this episode and this only (and most are regulars, such as Tylers, Jones and Nobles) I would prefer another name, although I'm not quite sure what would take the buiscuit... --I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Vortis AFD

I've nominated the Vortis (Doctor Who) article for deletion as a non-notable planet. The discussion is here. --OZ OO 21:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

UNIT name changed

An editor has changed the UNIT page name to Unified Intelligence Taskforce here .Is that not going to cause confusion ? .Garda40 (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll say... It has alway been United Nations Intelligence Taskforce for the past 30 years. Now that Russell T Davies has renamed for future episodes, this is only a case of "recentism" that should not have taken place. The organisation and it's articles should have the title that it is best known by. — Edokter • Talk • 15:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay changed. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be moved to UNIT, as it redirects to Unified/United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, and there's a dispute over the name. Will ^(talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I support a move to UNIT. DonQuixote (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep the historical name and perhaps have a different article for the "new" UNIT. Type 40 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments on the talk page there, and on the basis of the facts as I am aware of them, it's my position that the name has not yet been changed, the statement in SFX is not a valid reference for that assertion, since as a statement of fact about a fictional organisation, only the context of that fiction can be said to apply. As it hasn't been changed within the show itself to date, the changes are in error and should be reversed. When the series actually uses the term it should be reflected in the article, but until then only noting that according to the article RTD intends to change this for the up-coming series is enough to be accurate and informative. For all we know it might be one of RTDs jokes, and what he means is something along the lines of "-Oh the UN don't want us to use their name? Fine we'll still call it UNIT, and pretend it stands for something else if anyone asks -what can they do?" Until the actual series airs we can't know the context of the change within the show, nor how it is executed, overtly or not. I also think that as it's obviously a backronym, UNIT would be an appropriate name for the article as a whole, since any expanded version is based on it, rather than vice versa.Number36 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree... This whole new name is based on a single comment in an interview, while the old name is based in 30 years of history. It should be moved back. (Moving to UNIT could be a temporary silution, but articles should generally not reside on their abbrivations.) — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd support either a move back to the original name, or to UNIT as both the most common name and the name currently used (since, Unified or not, they can no longer say United Nations). --Brian Olsen (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people will type in "UNIT" for information, not "UIT." Mention the controversy, say what it's called now and leave it alone. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Astrid Peth on Good Article "on hold"

I have GA-reviewed Astrid Peth and put it on hold (notes on the talkpage). The GA nominator, User:Wolf of Fenric, hasn't edited in a while, so I leave a note here. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll hopefully be able to work on it tonight. Sorry for the delay - had to submit my dissertation and have done 24 hours on radio in the last two weeks. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Astrid Peth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Astrid Peth, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth. Thank you. (I'm just the messenger.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As an update, the AFD has been withdrawn, possibly due to another editor pointing out to the nominator that the article is currently a GA nominee. However there is a current discussion going on at the article's talk page by someone who wants to merge it with the VOTD article. This could spell trouble for articles on other one-off DW characters such as Grace Holloway. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully, people seem to be opposing the merge. As explained many times, Sara Kingdom, Grace and Astrid are exceptional cases for many reasons despite their one-off appearances. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New articles for episodes

OK... decision time. We've got the first two episodes up and running. I suggest that at any one time, we only have the next two articles active (which would mean waiting until after Partners in Crime has aired before creating Planet of the Ood). However, PotO was created yesterday, and I reverted suggesting discussion based on the numerous times over the last few weeks I suggested making episode articles and the consensus was not to. So, let's decide here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We usually create articals for all episodes that have names, I would want an artical on the first three at least.--Wiggs (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not true; look at Torchwood episodes. Not even the next two have articles at the moment. Also, we've had names for a long long time, and the articles haven't been created. See also the bottom thread here. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't reffering to Torchwood, I was reffering to Doctor Who.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs)

It's all the same WikiProject; all the same WikiProject policy. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Then as you said, we should come up with a policy, since how things have been done varies from case to case. I feel we should have a PotO artical due to the fact we've known about the episode for so long and have just a much info on it as the first two, secondly last year by this point we had articals for all named episodes.--Wiggs (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do read the link I gave above; I think the consensus has changed. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've read it and the policy doesn't seem to be too clear, is it when we have an airdate we have a an artical or is it done two episodes in advance?--Wiggs (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's neither, there is none. I suggested two episodes in advance; now let's let others discuss too! —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've no problem with episode articles being created as soon as we have official confirmation of the episode title. This has been done many times for Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures, although often with redirects to season/series lists until more information is given. As the article will be made anyway, I've no problem with it starting sooner rather than later. As for Doctor Who and Torchwood, WikiProject policy may diverge as some editors set up that Torchwood WikiProject, which somewhat interferes with what the umbrella Doctor Who WikiProject was already achieving. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the "two-out-of-three" method that Matthew once suggested to me: "Notability notwithstanding, we need two sourced things about an episode before we create an article: title, airdate, and plot". And the TW project is admittedly deader than dead. Will ^(talk) 14:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Torchwood

Back when the Torchwood project was started, there was an informal discussion about whether it was even necessary. The consensus at the time seemed to be that it wasnot needed, as it is really a subset of Doctor Who. (One comparison was in regards to how Angel is covered under the Buffy project.) However, nothing was ever done about the matter, so it seems appropriate to bring it up again. Given that most of the editors working on Torchwood are also working on Doctor Who, that the two share the same MoS, and that other spin-offs (such as Sarah Jane) are under the Who project, should we fold WPT? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood now runs into 2 series, has an expansive backstory, and a diverse range of characters. The background, theme and tone of the series is completely different to Doctor Who. I understand the arguaments, but personally, I think it should stay - Weebiloobil (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since both share the same universe, I think we should fold the Torchwood project. It is also a pretty dead project with very little active participation. We alreay share the portal space, so why not merge the projects? — Edokter • Talk • 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Project newsletter

How does everyone feel about this? It could get more participation in the project than the regulars. Basically, we create a monthly newsletter such as this, and give news about the project like new FAs, GAs, FLs, AFDs, merge proposals, that sort of thing. Opinions? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but Who's gonna do it? — Edokter • Talk • 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it too, but haven't got the time right now to take the lead myself. I'll pitch in as best I can if someone else gets the ball rolling. --Brian Olsen (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be able to, but I wouldn't want to impose a feeling that I'm being controlling on anyone else :) Sceptre ^(talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter is an example I've whipped up. How does it look? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Any chance of getting a tiny Tardis in the header? If it is too much trouble don't worry about it. Thanks for working on it Sceptre. MarnetteD | Talk 03:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it'll have to be called The Examiner... no, seriously, we should give it a fun name. Any ideas? —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who dispatches? Sceptre ^(talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's got to be something really to do with Who... how about "Space-Time Telegraph"? —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I never watched Terror of the Zygons. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Honoured I'm sure... though I don't accept responsibility when we get sued :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This month's is here.. though it is a bit of cheating as it's not the end of the month for another week :D Sceptre ^(talk) 15:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How will it be delivered? AWB? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd think so. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! --Brian Olsen (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of protection

Given the high number of pages that have been indefinitely/long-term protected (List of Doctor Who serials, Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), The Fires of Pompeii - BTW, time to create The Sontaran Stratagem, I'd say!)... should we develop an article template to advise people of WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:VER and other associated policies? It would mean a reduction in the amount of rubbish that gets added. Also, how about a {{uw-vand1}}-like series of templates? My suggestion is below... —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the content type suits it better, in combination with the standard template. — Edokter • Talk • 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me... should we make a {{newepisode}} template then? —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk to WikiProject Television about this too, they may be interested. - LA @ 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm gonna be bold and create it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of this template to the upcoming Doctor Who episode (I haven't checked to see if you've added it to other episodes). As far as I can tell nothing has changed since last year. The addition of unsourced content is something this project faces daily, and no amount of templates is going to combat this problem as far as I'm concerned. Further, why? Last time you started tagging articles I don't believe you could rationalise it/provide an excuse. Matthew (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll replace it since the consensus here is that it should be used. If you wish to change the consensus, discussing first is the procedure. As I stated in my opening comment, the large-scale protection that has had to be employed this year - a new and unfortunate innovation - could be made more effective, or maybe removed altogether, if users were warned in advance. You can't possibly back up your claim no amount of templates is going to combat this problem as far as I'm concerned... how can you possibly know? When was this experiment tried? Where's the archived discussion of its results? Give it a go. If it doesn't work, then we can draw the conclusion that it doesn't work ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm missing something, but where is the consensus you speak of? (Actually scratch that. I'm not missing anything because there isn't a consensus here.) I don't see any evidence that it worked last year (when you introduced last year, which I coincidentally removed). The only rationalisation I can see why you want to introduce these templates to articles is so you don't have to revert "bad" edits. Considering you're not the only editor here I'm of the opinion that other editors will be able to successfully revert these "bad" edits. You made an edit, I reverted it, now get consensus -- please (I don't consider your support alone consensus). Matthew (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree as to the apparent lack of consensus to create and include this template. Further, I don't really see the need for a new, separate one developed primarily by and for one series. It would be better to discuss this on the talk page for the existing "future television" template, and establish consensus to incorporate new language into that template to achieve the same result. (That would also avoid needless clutter created by having two templates addressing essentially the same issue.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is myself, Edokter the admin and User:Lady Aleena. Don't use it if you don't want, I don't give a sh*t any more. —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, please don't take this so personally. Some of the language you've come up with is potentially quite useful, and could easily be incorporated into the existing template. (I'm thinking specifically of the references to the various policies and guidelines.) Why not propose it at Template:futureepisode and see what happens? --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Category:Doctor Who universe necessary

Is Category:Doctor Who universe necessary? I found it by chance and would like to CFD it since it seems redundant. - LA @ 19:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it functions as the root for most other Doctor Who categories. Deleting it would break the structure. The categories do need some extensive reorganisation... I'll give you that. — Edokter • Talk • 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me fiddling with the category structure? Give me a couple of hours with them, and I think I can make a structure people will like. Also, I have a Doctor Who color scheme I would like to introduce, would anyone be interested? - LA @ 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use argument

Please see the discussion at Talk:Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). Pls. discuss there rather than here, so as to keep discussion centralised. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is now listed on Wikipedia:Fair use review. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Matthew has started deleting other articles' images. I've put all my images up for speedy, because I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of ruining this project any further by removing more. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So far all series four and a couple from series 3's pictures are gone, how can we fix this, where do the pictures need to have come from?--Wiggs (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The removal of Series 3 images has been rather rash. Why target them and not all Doctor Who story images? Most claim the same fair-use. If deletionists really want to run amock, why not go the whole hog? It seems odd to target just Series 3. Although that is the trend with Doctor Who articles - target the most recent for major changes forgetting the 'classic' series.

The only reason I can see for not having Series 4 episode images yet is that we don't know the relative importance of the few scenes for which images are so far available. Until we see them in context, we cannot possibly establish how representative they are of the episode nor if better images can be found - a high possibility. If this deletionist stance gains much more strength on Wikipedia, I may jump on the bandwagon of those leaving. Most people would be pleased about that, I reckon, anyway, my being inclined towards the inclusionist approach and having a fondness for relevant so-called 'trivia'. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought for spinout articles

Contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested renames

I am currently going through the category structure of Doctor Who articles and project and would like to have a the project's support for the speedy renaming of the categories and renaming the project's template.

Category:WikiProject Doctor Who templates → Category:Doctor Who templates

Category:WikiProject Doctor Who members → Category:WikiProject Doctor Who participants

~~{{Doctorwhoproject}} → {{WikiProject Doctor Who}}~~

I have no other reason than the need for neatness. So, if I can get enough support here, I may be able to get it speedied at CFR. - LA @ 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead with the template rename since I haven't heard anything in the last day. - LA @ 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the first one makes sense, if you don't mind changing all those pages (and I'm guessing you don't, from all the work you've been doing lately!). What's the reason for the second - members to participants? Oh, and by the way, nice work with all the article assessing! --Brian Olsen (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian, let's just say that I want all of my projects to be the same across the board for the purpose of templating them. I have a subpage for my WikiProjects which has a lot of red links because things are not named the same for all of them. It is just a personal thing however. If the projects really don't like it, then I will just have to deal with it. I just hope that this one will be kind. - LA @ 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've no objection to the first change; it's neater and it makes sense - these templates are related to the show, not specifically the WikiProject itself. I'm not crazy about the second one, though, as it requires everybody to edit their user page; plus, I think of myself as a "member", not just a "participant", of this Project. Why can't you change your subpage, rather than change the template? --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it is a personal preference, that is all. If it is not liked, I will deal. The template I was talking about is here.

About assessments, well, I could use some help with it. There are still over 900 articles to assess, and I am not really looking forward to doing them all alone. I will be looking into how other projects assess their articles when I write up my proposal for assessing articles within this one. Even if someone picks just one letter out of the alphabet and assesses those, it would be great. - LA @ 20:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a lot of members who are not participating. That is another reason to rename the user category. Membership is all fine and well, but participation is more important. - LA @ 20:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RfArb

Please see the arb page, where I've filed a case about the recent massacre of images. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I and others I'm sure would like to support you, are we allowed to put are case forward on this page, if so where?--Wiggs (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't comment unless you wish to become a party; I see no reason why you shouldn't do that. In that case, just add another ==Statement by {username}== header like the others. Otherwise, you can't comment until the Arbs decide to accept the case; you can help persuade them to accept it, though, that's important. Thanks! —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on it won't necessarily make you a party - there's nothing stopping uninvolved editors from weighing in on the merits of this case. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, pardon me - I've not been involved with this much before. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind is that the use of images - and Wikipedia policy that changed regarding them exactly a year ago - has been the subject of massive debate, not all of it civil, for months. It has resulted in many users, including myself, refusing to upload images anymore. Some have left Wikipedia entirely, because of what is seen by some as Draconian (I love using that word in a Doctor Who forum!) rules and an example of copyright paranoia gone mad. Others feel that any image that hasn't had permissions signed, sealed, and buried in soft peat for three months should be utterly banned from Wikipedia. I personally see it as a losing battle if you're trying to get some sort of arbitration re:NFCC. This is a separate issue from the editing dispute, though, on which I can have no comment as I'm not familiar with the situation. 23skidoo (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFCC#8 appears to be being used to remove images. It is very easy to make a case against this and reinstate the images. They enhance the understanding of the plots as detailed in the articles, so Wikipedia:NFCC#8 loses sway. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but have you seen some of the disgusting comments that have been made? —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of you may have seen this already but for those that haven't here is my attempt to find a solution for this NFCC#8. I have been adding the phrase "as pictured above" at the point in the plot summary that the picture is from. See this exanple [2]. So far it seems to have worked though who knows what the future will bring. I wasn't able to get to "The Last of the Time Lords" in time to do this and the pic has been obliterated so if any of you can upload a new one please do so. I hope that this may be of some help. If any of you have other solutions please feel free to add them here. MarnetteD | Talk 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, MarnetteD. I hope this attack on Fair-Use images passes soon. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

AFD note

Please note that Magic Bullet Productions (makers of Kaldor City) is up for AFD as is Alan Stevens. The nominations can be found here. 23skidoo (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Result was Keep --Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Assessment Committee

There is now an assessment committee sign up for this WikiProject. This project now has a seperate place to discuss how the articles are assessed. If you are interested, please come and take a look. - LA @ 22:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Torchwood to Torchwood task force

I asked this on WikiProject Torchwood a few days ago, and no one has said anything yet, but I think that Torchwood would be better served as a task force of this project instead of having a seperate one. Only a few minor changes would need to be made to the various pages in the current WikiProject.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Torchwood → Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Torchwood

Category:WikiProject Torchwood members → Category:Torchwood task force participants

Or something else.

Template:WikiProject Torchwood → {{WikiProject Doctor Who|Torchwood-task-force=yes}}

This would categorize all Torchwood articles in Category:Torchwood articles.

Other task forces could follow: The Sarah Jane Adventures task force, K-9 task force, Doctor Who characters task force, Doctor Who serials and episodes task force, Doctor Who novels task force, Doctor Who audio plays task force, etc. etc. etc.

What do you think? - LA @ 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with having mulitple task forces would be that many like myself edit pages from each proposed task force's area. Would we be expected to join each task force or none? If each task force consists of the same group of people, what would be the point? We're all collected under this WikiProject already. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can we not simply merge the Doctor Who Wikiproject and the Torchwood one, that way you are far more likely to find active members on the Torchwood side of the project with help from those who are on the Doctor Who side.--Wiggs (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible Merge of Doctor Who audio productions and List of Doctor Who audio releases

I think these articals (Doctor Who audio productions and List of Doctor Who audio releases) are fairly similar and would be more useful as one, its been mentioned a while ago but I thaught I'd bring the topic up here.--Wiggs (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The list is already pretty long. I had to key Page Down 18 times to get to the bottom of it. - LA @ 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

OK, it's pouring in on every S4 article (plus List of Doctor Who serials, which has just had to be full-protected for a day - it's normally only semi-d) and it's certainly going to get worse and worse. We have to do something. As I see it, our plan should be the following:

Make a template and use it on pages; also a user-warning series.
Semi-protect all pages and be proactive about warning and blocking users who can edit semi-d pages.
Sweep all the articles for any material which fails policies and remove it to set an example.

Any other thoughts?--—TreasuryTag—t—c 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We have to put up with this every year, unfortunatly theres not much you can do other then protect the pages and look out for edits by unsigned users (usually the vandels/speculaters).--Wiggs (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Style clash

Why is this project advising people to use em dashes for cast lists? Wikipedia's Manual of Style directs editors to use en dashes for lists. --212.32.74.108 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do at some point... there are just tom many to do them all at once. — Edokter • Talk • 20:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the directions in the style section here. We can at least make sure new article pages use the right format, and slowly pic away at older ones. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this looks like a task best for someone with AutoWikiBrowser to handle. Anyone willing to take it up who uses it? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Progress Report from the Doctor Who Assessment Committee

ALL articles with WikiProject Doctor Who template have been assessed.

That is right...Unassessed-Class Doctor Who articles and Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles are empty. Thank you Amxitsa, Wiggstar69, and Weebiloobil who helped assess the articles. - LA @ 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Stub cat match up

Would some of you go through the following categories and make sure that all Stub articles are properly templated? This assessor is currently very tired of looking at these pages for the moment.

Category:Doctor Who stubs - 490 articles templated

Category:Stub-Class Doctor Who articles - 694 articles identified as stubs

These numbers should be equal. - LA @ 07:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get right on it, though it may take a while - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Doctor Who (series 4) to List of Doctor Who serials

Series articles have been discussed before, not least at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who New Series 3. They are redundant to List of Doctor Who serials and individual episode articles. TreasuryTag wants to discuss so here we are. Tim! (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see good reason to devote an article to a seasonal series; List of Doctor Who serials is primarely a list which 1) is already very big, and 2) should not contain too much detail. Now that series 4 is starting, we need to move all the series 4 information somewhere, and Doctor Who (series 4) is as good a place as any. On the other hand, that information is also well served in the episode's articles, but it would splinter the information that applies to the entire series, and loose context in the process. Also, many other TV projects follow this format. — Edokter • Talk • 13:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Oppose - it's notable, and as Edokter points out - most astutely, if I may say so - List of Doctor Who serials is a list. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to much information which is about Series 4 as a whole though; all this article contains is producers, cast and episodes titles, all of which is best off in the individual episode articles. Tim! (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be lots more information in about five hours! And more and more as the weeks go on. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why that cannot go in the episode articles? Tim! (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

With the list of serials artical and individual episode articals covering a lot of this information this artical feels a little unimportant and a bit useless, although it would be a shame to loose the order they were filmed and the tiny bits of information that dont have a home elsewhere.--Wiggs (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. There's lots of information specific to the series but not specific to episodes, Tim. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is true, I'm sitting on the fence at the moment, I can see how this artical could cover the story arc, but there are other articals that this would fit in too, like charicter articals and the story arc artical (bad wold, mr saxon, etc).--Wiggs (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the information's going to be unneccesary in the list in about thirteen weeks' time. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

With the word 'series', in the context of 'Series 4', being a proper noun, why is it not capitalised in the article's title? I know this seems to be convention, (e.g. Lost (season 1) and Smallville (season 1)), but isn't it an error? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is a noun, but not part of a title, so it should not be capitalised. — Edokter • Talk • 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it the title given to the series - Series 4? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only by us. — Edokter • Talk • 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The official BBC website uses 'Series Four' as oppose to series 4 or Series 4 - should we not follow suit? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC shop call it 'Doctor Who: Complete Series 4 (DVD)', the BBC Doctor Who website calls it 'Series Four of Doctor Who' or just 'Series Four'. As we don't have a 'Doctor Who (series 3)' is it safe to assume that this page will in time be split/merged with episode pages and the 'List' page?
For now I oppose merging and think the name may as well stand. If we are to keep it long term then I would back a name change to 'Doctor Who (Series Four)'. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It all depends. You'll notice we see Buffy season seven is diffeent to Buffy Season Eight, where Season Eight is part of the title. With Lost, "season one" is correct. Why should Doctor Who "series four" be any different? I think it should be classed as "2008 series" anyway, myself, as Doctor Who has had two runs. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for at least a few weeks - lets see how it shapes up under the info from the first few episodes - Weebiloobil (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of cast names INSIDE synopses

What's the point of putting the names of the actors next to the characters they play when the cast list in the infobox fulfills the job anyway? It's just space-consuming and a jarring distraction from reading the synopsis to have the actors' names poking out at one. - NP Chilla (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it totally clutters up the pages. It is completely unneeded. Especially when it comes to the Doctor and his companions. On the new series four pages they are even being put into the continuity and production sections meaning that we see them 3 or 4 times. It is not something that has been done on the Doctor Who pages before and it is not required on any of the guideline pages for the television project or on WP:EPISODES pages that I can find. A consensus needs to be reached by the members of the project about whether we want them or not. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks professional, being there like that. I like it; let's go and make a consensus then; let's not edit-war! —TreasuryTag—t—c 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks about as professional as TV Quick and WP:ILIKEIT amounts to very little, I'm afraid. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not to provide RL emphasis?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Season templates

Recently, navigational templates have been created for new series 1, 2, 3 and 4, as well as Torchwood series 1 and 2. (Technically, one also exists for season 16.) Should similar templates be created for all the original seasons, and SJA season 1? --OZ OO 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea (I created the series 4 template). I'm going to be doing something for The Trial of a Time Lord too (reformat the page to an episode list, with the four subsplit). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created all the templates here. What d'ya think of them? --OZ OO 20:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks excellent. Who's going to insert them in all the serial articles? :) — Edokter • Talk • 21:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to use {{The Trial of a Time Lord}} for season 23. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to consistancy in style and naming. — Edokter • Talk • 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Whose going to insert them all? Someone with too much time on their hands, like, say, me. Done 'em all. --OZ OO 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that {{The Key to Time}} and {{The Trial of a Time Lord}} are superceded by {{Doctor Who (season 16)}} and {{Doctor Who (season 23)}}, can we delete the former? — Edokter • Talk • 12:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the latter (though The Key to Time (Doctor Who season 16) serials) may be a better compromise: remember, The Trial of a Time Lord is the official title for Season 23. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The first one isn't actually used; I really think the base template should have consistent naming and looks. — Edokter • Talk • 14:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been the one who made The Key to Time template, I'm all for upgrading to the new format for consistency. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Participants list

I was scanning through our participants list and I think we may need to do some sort of update to it. There are names on there that have not made any edits for a year or more and I found one name whose only edit was to put their name on the list. As a wikignome a cleanup project like this is right up my alley. However, I did want to check with other members of the project before starting anything. Here is my proposal

Any names that have not editied at wikipedia for over 18 months, or whose only edit was to add their name to the list, be removed - or have the strike line put through it.
For those of less then 18 months I would leave a message on their page asking if they still want to be a member of the project. If they respond yes then we leave them in and if no, or there is no response after ten days, then we remove them
We might also want to leave the same kind of message for active editors who have not edited any Doctor Who articles for some time. The filmproject recently did something like this.

These are not set in stone and any other suggestions and/or changes are most welcome. I was prompted to this by the fact that we are now delivering a newsletter and there is no reason to send it to editors who will never see it.

My thought is to accept suggestions to this until April 20th (or sooner if we come to an agreement) and then get started on it on the 21st.

Let me know what you think and if you don't like the idea at all that is okay too. Cheers to all. MarnetteD | Talk 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - That is a great idea, though you may want to start an inactive page for those removed. I would still like to get the participant category changed to WikiProject Doctor Who participants to show actual participation. - LA @ 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - except for point number three... not called for IMO. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - the first two points, at least. Though I agree with TreasuryTag that it might be better to create a group for inactive participants. Perhaps we could simply make a subsection for them at the bottom? --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Lady Aleena, TreasuryTag and Infophile. I will get started on this in the next day or so and please feel free to check on my progress and correct me if I do anything that messes things up. MarnetteD | Talk 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How should we list Torchwood episodes?

In the Chronology of the Doctor Who universe article, there are two opposing thoughts. One is that Torchwood episodes should be grouped "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" to "Exit Wounds" with the dates between these stories given, the other seems to be focusing on quibbling on specific story placements which are inconsistent (for example, listing "Random Shoes" and "Adrift" separately from the rest of the episodes). Where does the consensus lie on this trivial little matter?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts: keep it simple. Group those episodes which are chronologically back-to-back. — Edokter • Talk • 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to convince other editors. Part of the situation is that a fictional timeline is likely to appeal to "inclusionists".~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article and the discussion page, I see little wrong with listing sections from episodes that occur at different times in the appropriate place. Editors seem to be helpfully providing explanatory footnotes for multiple listings. The article is a chronology, not a list of episodes, so it should be as accurate as possible with respect to the events it is detailing. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Doctor is an encourageable meddler

Just a note on things:

We have several FACs and GACs you may want to include input in:

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Fires of Pompeii" image

What is going on with the main image? Why is there a screenshot from a different programme there? I uploaded a reasonable screenshot of the episode which was replaced by another editor with a better quality image from the same scene. Why now do we have an image from a different programme? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot about that, was uploading to Veropedia. Screenshot replaced back. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)...

...is now a featured article. I encourage all editors to take the lead of this article (or Doomsday) and work on writing some more FAs. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 17:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd noticed a couple of days actually... well done! —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens

Just stumbled across Table of Doctor Who characters, monsters, and aliens. This looks like a duplicate of other lists and probably needs attention. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is now at AfD. --Lu Ta 04:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

UNIT

United Nations Intelligence Taskforce was renamed to UNIT through the requested move process (see Talk:UNIT#Requested move for full discussion). I have now nominated Category:United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to be renamed to Category:UNIT here. Tim! (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to TARDIS wiki

I am a tardis wiki editor, and I have noticed that you have links to that wiki. Some of those links are out of date, as there have been changed to minimise the "(TV STORY)" disambigs in the titles. Any link to such a page may no longer work. 129.215.149.98 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The links should not break, as the TARDIS wiki should normally leave a redirect when an article is moved. So unless the redirects are deleted, there should be nothing to worry about. If you do come accross a broken link, anyone is of course free to fix them. — Edokter • Talk • 19:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)