Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:28, 15 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Doctor Who and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Project‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Doctor Who was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 27 August 2012.

• WT:WHO

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Doctor Who eyes

After gazing upon this http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-23/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-special-features-surprise-double-cameo-appearances from Radio Times, and of course the feature itself from The Day of the Doctor, I've put together a category of free-use-images, at:

commons:Category:Doctor Who eyes

Enjoy,

— Cirt (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently-deleted Template:Infobox Doctor Who book

{{Infobox Doctor Who book}} was recently merged into {{Infobox book}}, which mainly involved a bot going around making edits like this, and it was deleted after the merge (see this TfD). To facilitate the merge, a new |release_number= parameter was added to {{Infobox book}}, but this has proved controversial. See discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#Proposed addition of a release_number parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Big Finish audio at AFD - could do with better sourcing

A user has nominated a number of Big Finish audio dramas for deletion on the perfectly reasonably grounds that they had no sources showing notability whatsoever. It might be an idea to check all of those articles and add sources as a preventative measure - preferably mainstream ones with editorial oversight. Artw (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Artw:What do you mean by CHRCK? Was that a typo? — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh. That was a typo, unless I accidentally involved an old and forbidden Misplaced Pages acronym. Artw (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Companion navbox overhaul

Hey all. I raised this some time ago at Template talk:Tenthdoctorcompanions, but it didn't get much traction there and another editor suggested I bring it here. I think that the navboxes for each Doctor's companions, in their current state, are very bloated, messy and in need of a serious update. For example, the Tenth Doctor companions template as it stands now:

For what should be a simple set of links between related pages, it's staggeringly complex, attempting to convey far more information than a navbox was ever designed to do, in a way that actively makes navigation more difficult. (My full argument, along with some rebuttals to it, can be seen at the link above.) This is the replacement navbox I propose (though of course input is more than welcome):

I would propose making similar modifications to all the other companion templates. Under the current setup, the Eighth Doctor's companions are in a particular mess, with no less than four large navboxes for a handful of articles, and with the "TV companions" navbox absurdly consisting of a single relevant article!

My proposed replacement for the above (again, just a guideline, refinements could be made but this is the general structure I think is best):

I think these changes would improve the navigation and aesthetic value of the templates significantly, as well as bringing them in line with WP:NAVBOX, many of whose rules they currently break. —Flax5 23:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather than bloat up this page with alternative versions, it would be better to sandbox them. That is (considering only the first), create Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions/sandbox as a copy of Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions, and amend as necessary. If it is desirable to show the two together, do so at Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions/testcases. The same can be done for the others that you have mentioned. More at WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Flax5 14:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Flax5: your amended navboxes look like a great improvement. I would support making your suggested changes. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support. Eshlare (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some of them may look bloated, we can't help it if the 10th has so many companions. But those are the exceptions. And with regards to being a navbox... they actually arent. They don't use the navbox template, only the associated CSS; they are actually tables organising the companion's tenures, but they double as navboxes. Removing the tabular format removes a lot of information. -- ] {{talk}} 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that navigational templates and informational tables should be combined. From a navigational perspective, all that excess information is a major obstacle (not to mention all the guidelines it breaks, such as not being concise, linking to articles outside its scope, using easter egg links, using unlinked text, linking repeatedly to one article, and linking to individual sections of an article). From an informational perspective, they suffer from awkward and unintuitive positioning – I doubt many readers who are researching Sarah Jane Smith will head straight to the bottom of her article to start opening collapsed templates.

Most of the extra information stored in these templates can be found in the Companion (Doctor Who) article, including their names, the seasons in which they appeared, their first and final story, and the number of appearances they made with each Doctor. The list in the article has the additional benefits of listing their full names, as well as the names of the actors. The only information missing here is the exact combination of companions in any given story, which I doubt will be important to many readers – if it is, their first stop will surely be the story's own article.

I wouldn't mind preserving the tables themselves somewhere, but the list in the companion article makes them nearly irrelevant in my view. —Flax5 14:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The simpler boxes look infinitely better.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support the navigational boxes sud onle Lincoln the campions on tv and in spinof for each doctor rather than tring to give a perspective of eache commons tener with the sires as this just makes them needlesley confusing for readers it may also be werth noting that the doctor who wiki tardis data cor already operates using a format similar to the one segested for compinon nab box sers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have settled with the majority of editors in favour of the idea– shall we move forward with the changes? —Flax5 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Flax5: I suppose you might as well. It would have been nice if a few more users had weighed in, but that's the way it goes. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

...I realize I'm late to the party, but the old version was way better. I found them incredibly useful. At the very least all that table information ought to be copied somewhere and not just thrown away. 74.192.36.96 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd commented on this somewhere already, but I'm for the stripped down templates. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is all the table information at least going to be relocated somewhere. Seriously somebody must have spent days putting all that together, it's useful information and it's pointless to throw it all away. 74.192.36.96 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's in the history, so if anyone ever wants it, they know where to find it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all the table information, plus a lot more, can be found at Companion (Doctor Who)#List of companions. —Flax5 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Transclusing individual series' pages to List of Doctor Who serials

There is talk on Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Sublists of Episodes to replace the current list tables in the article with the templated episode list transcluded directly from the series' pages (ie. Doctor Who (series 8). The most cited reason is that all other episode list use this construct. However, I think this is a bad idea for this episode list, mostly because this list is huge, and all information within has been condenced to the most essential. In contrast, the individual series' pages have much more information that will only clutter the list of serials even more. More input is welcome. -- ] {{talk}} 20:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Personally I belive that the includes of viwing figers and ai numbers in the episode list makes it easer to comper this info across multiple seris also it is simpler whith regards to minsodse as they are all in the other story's rather than the courant setup wher some like ps and night of the doctor which wher online and/red buton are in the episode list while dimensions in time Which was bro cast but is not genraley regarde as canon is in the other storeys so even if the subsists are not add then I think that onley full leth episodes be listed out Sid of the other story's it is also of not that night of the doctor only fetters the 8th and war doctors but not the 11th doctor who it is listed under in aney way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Arc of Infinity

We need attention at Arc of Infinity, where an IP is reverting two others (self included). One of the passages is a BLP matter, and the sources that they are using are blogs. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks in article titles

Articles on the eighth series episodes have <q>...</q> quotation marks in their titles. This is not generally accepted throughout Misplaced Pages, and is not even general practice in articles on Doctor Who episodes. An RFC on whether or not it should be failed to gain any traction. So… those tags should probably be removed, no? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no <q>...</q> tags in that article. The episode titles are enclosed in double quotation marks, "...", which is not at all the same thing, and is normal practice for episode titles in Misplaced Pages. Also, why do you single out Series 8, when all the other series listed on that page have quotation marks of precisely the same style? The quotation marks are produced by Module:Episode list; it's the line title_string = title_string..'"'..args.Title..'"' --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to each episode’s articles, e.g. Deep Breath (Doctor Who). Sorry for the confusion. The article for each series 8 episode uses <q>...</q> in its DISPLAYTITLE. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just after the {{DISPLAYTITLE:<q>Deep Breath</q> (''Doctor Who'')}} it has a HTML comment; the link in that now relates to this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is where the RFC I mentioned failed to gain any traction. I wouldn’t be averse to another attempt to have WP:AT and the MOS recommend it, but if there’s no project-wide support for doing it, it’s simply not a thing that we’re doing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an experiment; the <q>...</q> tag has been whitelisted very recently, and I want to explore it's use. I found that titles that are usually enclosed in double quotes in running text are the perfect candidate. This has not been explored before, so any argument stating that it's "just not done" is void to begin with; it couldn't been done before. There is also no policy (yet) governing the use of these tags. Sometimes these thing just need to be done before gaining any traction. -- ] {{talk}} 17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn’t sandboxes and userspace pages be more fitting for an experiment? I thought experimenting in article space was generally discouraged. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a technical experiment, but more of a social one. This is markup, and there is some leeway in experimenting in articles, as long as it is not disruptive in anyway. Sometimes the best way to test ideas is to just do them (while pointin to the relevant discussion). -- ] {{talk}} 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I’m afraid this experiment has failed. Where it wasn’t met with resistance, it wasn’t met with welcome either. If you wanted to take it upon yourself to add quotes to every title you could find, I’d be all for that and do the same; if not, we have these twelve(+?) articles displaying titles inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia, which is a problem. So basically, I’m asking for either a commit or rollback. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm letting it stay for now. If only to entice future debate. Obviously I can't change the multitude of article names all by myself. Inconsistency is not a valid argument either; all change introduces some degree of inconsistency, and even then, many WikiProjects have deviations that are inconsistent with the rest of Misplaced Pages, which are perfectly acceptable. If you have objections, support them with arguments. Don't just state they should go simply because there is no precendent; that is a self-referential argument. -- ] {{talk}} 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But it’s not “change”; it’s an aberration that, as far as I can tell, is not supported by the community. If you wanted change, you’d be pushing for it to be encouraged in policy, and you’d be enacting it in multitudes of articles (what’s stopping you? If you see something wrong, FIXIT) and encouraging others to. As far as I can tell, it’s just kinda sitting there, stagnant in its little corner. I’m not saying it should go because there’s no precedent; I’m saying it should go because no one seems bothered to set one. I’m saying it should go because the community does not support it. I’m also daring you to prove me wrong, because it’d be a nice change to see minor work titles properly displayed in quotes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you support me? Your only argument so far is "because, process". I won't accept that. Sure, I can keep pushing the issue, but I know I can't get universal support by discussion alone. I'd much rather it grows naturally. So just let it stay, wait for other to comment and engage in discussion. Hopefully with arguments that have merit. -- ] {{talk}} 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I said already, if you actually did anything with it I would support you, at least until we were able to get a sense of the consensus (hopefully positive) regarding it. But you’re not. You’re the only one pushing for this, and you’re not. Some time ago you reacted almost violently to the suggestion that we start a wide discussion about it (“Let’s start an RFC?” “No! No no no!”). You don’t act like you want anything more than this spot of inconsistent style. And that, I oppose. That’s why I posted here about it. If it apparently doesn’t matter to anyone besides you after several months (anyone else wanna reply?), and if it doesn’t even matter to you enough to try and get the question some real visibility, then what’s it even doing there? Just put it back the way the rest of the entire encyclopedia has it, unless you’re willing to involve the rest of the encyclopedia. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize I’m sounding harsh here. I’m sorry. It’s just… this is pointless if you just leave it there and wait for someone to give it a point. Change is disruptive. If there are no serious objections to it, be disruptive. Make the change everywhere that you sensibly can. Others will pick up on it and either embrace it or reject it, and either way, there will be something happening. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"anyone else wanna reply?" I support the use of the <q>...</q> tags, and I also agree with your suggestion that there should be a push to make them more widespread. It's not much of an experiment if edits adding the tags don't start showing up on watchlists all over the encyclopedia. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: When making edits like this, please make sure that you use the correct link - as I noted above, it's no longer Archive 47, but Archive 49; and the section heading is slightly different. In addition, for the link to work, the angle brackets need to be encoded: ] --Redrose64 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this at this time. Also it violates WP:TITLEFORMAT. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the part I want to discuss. I for one do not follow your interpretation, because the quotes are markup, not actually part of the title. Also, in a discussion on wether to use these tags, it is pointless to point out policy; it is the same as saying: "You can't legalize pot, because pot is illegal". And the old discussion gave no consensus either way. So beside policy, any other arguments we can exapnd on? -- ] {{talk}} 09:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So how do you legalize pot? By changing the law. So why don’t you want to talk about changing the relevant policies and guidelines? Also, the question of consensus is critical. If there’s no consensus for it—if the community does not want it done—we shouldn’t do it. But as far as I know, we don’t know what the consensus is or would be, so we need more discussion and/or more action. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, italics are not part of the title either, but TITLEFORMAT addresses those. No reason it shouldn’t talk about <q>...</q> if that tag’s use is acceptable. But it doesn’t. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: You do not get to demand action on my part by threatening to undo past work! I did make a start, and I started a discussion. I was bold enough, and some ohter followed. Now you demand from me to risk being disruptive. I am not going to do that. If you do support the quotes, you can do that yourself... but you never get to demand that from other and attach conditions to it! -- ] {{talk}} 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn’t a threat. It’s standard practice. I can appreciate your reasons behind adding quotes to a few titles, but if that’s all you did, then all you did was introduce some inconsistent formatting. If it becomes consistent, then that’s great; but if not, it should be reverted. Insisting on retaining the quotes in this small corner would be disruptive in the manner of WP:POINT, rather than the constructive disruption of WP:BOLD changes. Not to say this kind of boldness is the best way to go about it either, but that seems to be the path you’ve chosen. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So back to the question… Is anyone (other than the editor who added them) in favor of these twelve articles having quotation marks displayed in their titles while articles for other TV episodes, songs, short stories, etc. do not? Or are quotes being added to other articles too? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this is WT:WHO, we can't speak for the rest of Misplaced Pages. So I asume this question applies to WikiProject Doctor Who? In the mean time I'll see if I can set up an RfC (on a separate page that is not in the danger of being archived). -- ] {{talk}} 09:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Before this link war goes any further, link to Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles/Quote tags. The RfC is there now. -- ] {{talk}} 10:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

... with three days left to run. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I extend this? -- ] {{talk}} 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's determined by the very next datestamp following the {{rfc}}, in this case 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC). What I would personally do is to alter the line

—] (]) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

to

RfC extended by ~~~~; originally started by —] (]) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your timestamp needs to go somewhere before the original timestamp, so that Legobot (talk · contribs) will see it as the effective starting time of the RfC, but if you put a new timestamp right at the start, the text copied to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming won't be meaningful. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Legobot has recognised the amended end date for the RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to that set of articles

Since those quotation marks have been in place for over half a year without a consensus for them and with occasional challenges to them, and there’s no sign of a positive consensus in the RFC and related ongoing and prior discussions, should they still be there? I’d personally be in favor of a policy change to use quotation marks more consistently, but I’d oppose actually doing so until there’s more community acceptance, and absolutely reject doing it on an article-by-article basis. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And I want to continue as long as the as the RfC is running. I know you don't like it, but it is not you call alone. You seem to be the only one actually pushing to remove the quotes, and the only reason you cite is your dislike for inconsistency. Not a valid reason, so show some restraint and don't kill the discussion. -- ] {{talk}} 10:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How would fixing those twelve articles “kill the discussion”? No one else in the discussion has even seemed to notice them. Please don’t assume bad faith. Inconsistency is one reason, yes, but also the fact that it was done (and continues to be) without any consensus—those quotes have not been accepted in the six months since their introduction. What purpose does it serve to insist on keeping them in spite of that? Do you think these articles are prominent enough that they give the discussions some traffic? If that’s the idea, then I’d suggest using some more visible articles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You would take away the live examples. A screenshot or something intangiable is not good enough, that's just "look but don't touch!" To get a real opinion, people have to be able to 'feel' the real thing so they can experiment with it (using personal CSS for example). I'm not removing them since there is no consensus in this project to do so; otherwise, they would have been remove long ago. Yo want to remove them? Get consensus to do so first. -- ] {{talk}} 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User subpages are great for live examples, since you have near complete control over them. Article space is not, since it’s subject to constant revision. No one, myself included, is stopping you from creating subpages in your userspace to demonstrate the use of the tag, so please strike that excuse.

About consensus, how many editors have attempted to remove them over the months, and how many editors have reverted their removal? Are there more people for or against them? We also have to consider the possibility that calling it a “test” for so long stifled the normal editing process with a “look but don’t touch” mentality of its own. If there truly is no consensus regarding them, then it can wait until the RFC expires; but the burden of proof is on deviations from the norm, so please don’t demand a consensus for the norm. See also WP:NOCONSENSUS. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting 'The Doctor' to Doctor Who's 'The Doctor'

Currently 'the Doctor' does not link to the Doctor Who page instead it is listed as a disambiguation. A page which contains the term Doctor and 'The Doctor.

Most of 'The Doctor's are minor characters, with only a single paragraph retaining to them on a character list wikipedia page. As far as aI can see there are two prominent 'The Doctors'. The Other being 'The Doctor - EMH' from Star Trek Voyager. This character is big enough to have its own article, but in terms of popularity is nothing compared to 'The Doctor', I say at least 9 out of every 10 people will have heard of 'The Doctor - Doctor Who' and not 'The Doctor - Voyager'. One is a minor nor major character on a 6-year series of a larger franchise, the other is the main character of the longest-running and one of the most popular TV shows in the world and a character who has been played by over different 13 actors. In reality, 'The Doctor' almost always refers to Doctor Who, unless it is a Star Trek specific discussion.

I see no logical reason to have 'The Doctor' as a disambiguation. I propose linking 'The Doctor' to Doctor Who, and have a disambiguation link at the top for...

(1) Star Trek Voyager: The EMH Doctor and (2) Other uses of the name 'The Doctor' (all of which are minor characters).

DocHeuh (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: The main character of Doctor Who is clearly the primary topic for “The Doctor,” if you ask me, even here in the US. I’m ambivalent on including a link to the EMH (a supporting character) or just linking to the DABpage. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Star Trek fans may well admonish you for stating the EMH is a mere minor character. This is the reason WP:DAB exists, and the current arrangment is in full agreement of that guideline. -- ] {{talk}} 21:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak support with a hatnote atop Doctor (Doctor Who) pointing both to the disambiguation and the Trek character. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: 99% of people when hearing 'The Doctor' think of Doctor Who, because Doctor Who is a worldwide phenomenon and The Doctor is the main character. While Star Trek is also worldwide, Star Trek Voyager is almost the least popular series' and 'The Doctor' is if anything a 'secondary' character. It is only Star Trek fans who have heard of 'EMH The Doctor' and even then maybe only Star Trek Voyager fans. Dirac (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"...only Star Trek fans..."? You are kind of proving my point. We should not determin this based on fandom. -- ] {{talk}} 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right not fandom, but general public popularity. When people say 'The Doctor', fan or not, they are almost always referring to Doctor Who because it is a world-known character. The EMH Doctor is not, it is therefore only known of, by Star Trek fans. It is like Ozymandias: the poem and the comic book character. Usually when referring to 'Ozymandias' people are meaning the poem. The comic book character of Ozymandias is known only by the fans of Watchmen. Hence directly linked to poem. Dirac (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say the same. As much as I’ve always loved Trek, non-Trekkies are much more unlikely to be familiar with the EMH than non-Whovians are to be familiar with the man in the blue box. Tangentially, I’ve not seen or read Watchmen or even know anything about the character, but that is what I associate with “Ozymandias”; the poem wins on historical significance though (as does Doctor Who). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support a huge fan of Voyager who was surprised to find this isn't the pipe of choice, no problem with hatnote. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - a try out of search for the term 'The Doctor' suggests to me that the guy in the blue box is the more common use of the term. though it was not that scientific. Curiously the 1991 William Hurt film came out as first choices in the image suggestions under Bing, though not Google. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support IF a hatnote is included at the top of the page to redirect to The Doctor (EMH). Vyselink (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Input request

Please see this thread Talk:The Mind Robber#Wendy Padbury and Bernard Horsfall reunion in Davros was deliberate from Big Finish. Any and all input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class Doctor Who pages
• NA-importance Doctor Who pages
• WikiProject Doctor Who