Misplaced Pages

Request for Comment

This is a request to the members of the Doctor Who project to comment on the inclusion of Nyssa as a companion in the infobox for The Keeper of Traken. Please add your comments to the discussion here Talk:The Keeper of Traken#Nyssa as a companion here so that we can reach a consensus by involving more members of the project then are currently involved. Thanks in advance for your time and your thoughts. MarnetteD | Talk 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine, I should note, with any level of exegesis necessary in the footnote or article body to adequately capture the situation. However, when a reliable source explicitly notes her as a companion in a given episode, I have a very hard time seeing the grounds for removing that information. I'm fine with including more information. I'm not fine with removing sourced information. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My only comment is that Nyssa wasn't intended to be a companion when the episode was commissioned and written. It was only after the fact that she was made a companion. Reliable sources have mentioned this. DonQuixote (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over minor issue with crediting appearances in Specials at Talk:Doctor Who

I locked down Doctor Who because there is a minor content dispute raging on the talk page. Some more people looking into it might be useful. As I am quite busy these days, any other admin with this WikiProject can feel free to unprotect once it's been settled. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:05, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Canon

I know, I know. But I think this issue needs some clarification in strictly Wiki terms.

At present, the Who Project is working to a template of TV stories not mentioning the murky subject of a Dr Who canon, and all licensed spin offs and articles with information from spin off sources having a section added about the "canonicity being unclear". This causes consternation from some editors (myself included) for various differing reasons - but the issue over the existence of a Who canon cannot be resolved, for the simple reason that no-one will be able to agree on a single authority to resolve it even if that authority was then inclined to.

And that's fair enough: all part of the burden of being a Who fan.

In terms of Misplaced Pages, though, I think the way the canon debate is being documented isn't in the encyclopedia's best interest. To my view, the inclusion of the "canonicity is unclear" statement is giving undue weight to an entirely fan centric concern - the equivalent of putting a statement on every article related tangentially to UNIT saying that "the exact year this story is set in some doubt - see UNIT Dating Controversy".

Clearly there is a need for an article on Who canonicity, as the subject is both notable and mentioned by reliable sources, but my own prefered option for a proportionate way of dealing with it would be to mention canonicity on the main pages (Doctor Who, Virgin New Adventures, etc) and link to the Whoniverse article but to rely on proper referencing to clarify which information comes from which sources in the story and character articles.

But here's the problem: all of us here are Doctor Who fans, and we all have our personal bias on this subject - for example this project page states that the BBC consider the TV stories bar a few specials (Dimensions in Time?) to be canon, which I'd be remarkably interested in seeing properly referenced. Equally, my own suggestion might be underplaying the lesser nature of the spin-offs because of my own belief that the lack of an official canon makes the whole subject irrelevant.

What I would suggest is that we should get unconnected third party wiki-editors (possibly at the Neutrality Noticeboard?) involved to help ensure that we present the canon issue in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies, guidelines and best interests. If, through discussion or even formal mediation, we could get an unbiased summation of why canon issues are reported as they are then that would give something to direct people at when the issue flairs up again, as it undoubtedly will.

So, would the Who Project be open to having the current status quo discussed and possibly changed? Because without the support of you lot, I don't think the idea will get off the ground. JonStrines (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din! :) Apart from the disputes over what is and is not in canon, there are disputes over what the word 'canon' means (for example, I don't accept the need for an 'authority'). But, I agree that the articles should not come down one way or another, or even be drafted on the basis of an assumption as to what is canon with notes as to alternatives. I think the problem arises because editors get confused between whether the article is about the broadcast, audio and novel and whether it is about the 'meaning' of what is portrayed therein to Whoniverse continuity. The correct approach (IMO) is simply to set out the various portrayals (probably in date of publication order), noting any contradictions or additions etc, and let the readers sort out what this means for canon for themselves - though there should obviously be an article, or section of an article, on canon itself.

I suspect some articles restrict themselves to the TV series simply to limit their scope and size. For example, the Chronology is big, complicated and contradictory enough without trying to incorporate all the audio and written material! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I know that defining canon is an impossible task - which is why I'm hoping we can avoid having to do so entirely and instead focus on whether Misplaced Pages reports the dispute in accordance with NPOV. If we can agree a workable strategy here that can get the nod from some unbiased editors, though, I'd be happy to get the ball rolling on the actual work part of fixing this.JonStrines (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image for deletion

Just to let people know that the image Matt Smith.jpg is up for deletion. The process had not been completed - I have just notified the uploader and added the comment to the article page. The discussion can be found here Edgepedia (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletions

I've taken the liberty of changing the method by which we keep track of our deletion discussions from a user-edited one to the Article Alerts system, as advertised above. The old system was often unreliable, with most deletion discussions going unreported; this new method is bot-operated, and so doesn't require our input. Unfortunately, it won't work for a day or two, so until then we should keep a close eye on XfD (in particular, Matt Smith.jpg). Once it loads properly, we can make any final decisions over whether to keep it, or not. Any comments? - weebiloobil (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Might be worthwhile adding PEERREV, RFC, COPYVIO workflow alerts to the deletion-oriented ones set up already. Those're processes where people familiar with the topic up for discussion are especially useful. (The last one might be an early warning for potential deletions?)

 Done - weebiloobil (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• The default listing duration of 14 days might be worth extending to, say, 21 or 30 days (3wks/1month), too.

 Done Extended to 30 days - weebiloobil (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a header (subpage) to the bare looking alerts page would be nice. Something simple like WikiProject Ohio's could work; you could steal pay homage to that.

 Doing... - weebiloobil (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done - weebiloobil (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tangentially, I added a few items (may need cleanup for style consistency) to your deletion discussion archive. –Whitehorse1 19:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Planet of the Dead" NFCC image dispute

Groan! Anyone able to do anything constructive about this? I give up trying. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion as to something "constructive": provide a rational as to why that image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and as to how omitting it "would be detrimental". Matthew (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And it continues. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#I7: Fair use images that fail any part of WP:NFCC may be tagged as {{subst:dfu|reason}} and deleted after 7 days.

Why are you removing the image from the article, which you assert has no valid fair-use rationale at present, instead of tagging the image for discussion? –Whitehorse1 18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Story numbers

Because "Planet of the Dead" is being marketed as the 200th special, we should revisit how we number them. A poll in the latest DWM (406) numbers them without Shada and with TOATL as one "story" with two parts. I think, given that DWM is as official as we can get (RTD is edging towards considering POTD as #200), we should change the numbers to be consistent with DWM. Basically:

• Seasons 1 through 17 keep their numbers.
• Seasons 18 to 23 have one subtracted from their numbers.
• The component parts Trial of a Time Lord are labelled as 143a to 143d.
• Seasons 24 to 26, the TV movie, and the new series have four subtracted from their numbers.

Thoughts? Sceptre 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. From the editor in DWM: "But if I've got this right, you reach a total of 200 by following certain rules - I think 'The Trial of a Time Lord' has to be counted as one story, the unfinished 'Shada' discounted, and 'Utopia,' 'The Sound of Drums,' and 'Last of the Time Lords' have to be considered one story, not two... I'm not sure about 'Trial,' it feels like four stories to me! And I certainly feel the Series Three climax was two stories, no matter what the DWM season poll says... There's no official BBC policy on this. There never will be... I'll do anything for a hook... cos frankly, if it helps us get an article or two in the week of transmission, then that's a job well done."

Looks more like a marketing ploy to me. Besides, he also says in a thread over at doctorwhoforum.com that the poll of this magazine is about the transmitted stories, which is why Shada isn't included. Also, RTD has mentioned the finale of series 3 as both a two-parter and a three-parter. I say we leave all the confusing stuff out and let everything stay like it is. :) Davhorn (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, somebody – not me – (they're IP-based) is going through changing them already, according to the changelog for articles under this project (linked from this wikiproject main page). –Whitehorse1 15:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

...Aaand that somebody is being reverted now, by TreasuryTag. –Whitehorse1 15:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons did the same with 24 Minutes, which was marketed as 400th episode while it was in fact You Kent Always Say What You Want. If we have reliable sources that say Utopia/SotD/LotTL was a two-parter or that ToaTL was four stories, then this marketing cannot change the numbers. As Davhorn cites, the DWM editors themselves are not sure whether that would be canon and the BBC themselves have no policy for it. I'd say let's wait what DWM digs up before we go on changing dozens or hundreds of articles based on that marketing. Regards SoWhy 15:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Davhorn's quote from DWM is from Russell T Davies, not from DWM editor Tom Spilsbury. The question I'd ask is whether we should really include story numbers in {{Doctorwhobox}} at all, given that different reliable sources number stories differently from Season 18 on. The footnoted text in List of Doctor Who serials takes care of the issue in that article, but do we have to add a similar note to the number assigned to every story from Shada on?

Davies' column in DWM #406 makes the point that decisions on how to count stories are really quite arbitrary, and everybody's got the right to his or her own opinion: "We're into the mystical land of canon here, where the baseline of the argument simply comes down to 'because I think so!' And that's my point. There is no official BBC policy on this. There never will be. The fact that I'm sitting here in my Executive Producer's robes of ermine and nylon means nothing — my opinion has no more weight than yours."

Given that, should we remove the number field from the infobox? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a bit confused with the quotery there. :) Davhorn (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WRT The Simpsons, I think the 24 parody was always intended to be the four-hundredth, and got switched around pretty late. The Simpsons production team, being a bit more cohesive, normally get their "x-hundredth" episodes right (and added a snide aside that the "official" 300th episode was the 302nd). As far as production details are concerned, to the best of my knowledge:

• Utopia to LOTTL is undisputedly one story; no-one really disputes that.

Russell T. Davies does. He says in the same DWM column we've already quoted from, "I certainly feel the Series Three climax was two stories, no matter what the DWM season poll says. I'm sorry! I just do! I could rattle off the reasons, but we're into the mystical land of canon..." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Both in narrative and production terms, and because the author says so, the "three-parter" story is two separate stories, and the only arguments for considering it a single story is a cliffhanger (which of course has happened between stories many times before), and because it helped publicity at the time. Removing the number column would presumably mean removing or referencing statements about the numbers of stories broadcast so far, but otherwise is good idea because it's not really based on anything outside Misplaced Pages, except perhaps the Discontinuity Guide. --Cedders 09:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Trial is a special case in which it was aired as (and intended to be) one serial, with four "sub-serials", themselves with four (or, in the case of the last, two) episodes. The BBC's archive has it ordered like that; and DWM features tend to treat them that way.
• Planet of the Dead will be the 200th story broadcast if Trial is counted as one serial, and not four, because Shada was never broadcast).

Mind you, the BBC have historically been a bit inconsistent with Trial; Dragonfire, which the archive and poll call the 147th story, was marketed as the 150th. Incidentally, Shada is listed in the 200-story poll as "sort-of proper" Doctor Who, along with the Cushing films, K9&C, and all of the mini stories. Then again, this all depends on whether the BBC archive is more authoritative than the Doctor Who reference guide... Sceptre 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that different reliable sources count the stories differently, so we probably shouldn't play favorites — at least, not without a footnoted explanation, like we have at List of Doctor Who serials. Actually, the point about Dragonfire having been advertised as the 150th story is a good argument for us removing the numbers from the infobox, since you can't really line up Dragonfire as #150 and "Planet of the Dead" as #200, though both were so numbered by reliable sources at the time of their original broadcast. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragonfire may have been advertised as 150 at the time, but it was later stated as a "Myth" - see here - and corrected to story 147. Trial was only ever one story. The titles came up on screen as parts one to 14. Shada was not broadcast, so should not count as a brodcast story, and Utopia said "To be continued" thus is the first of a three parter. Therefore, Planet of the Dead is the 200th - as is being advertised now. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is totally arbitrary and the statements are made to serve the purposes of the day - e.g. "Dragonfire is the 150th story" was as much about getting extra publicity for season 24. RTD's column notes the industry generally doesn't care about this sort of thing so any attempt to find a definitive list at source is always going to fail. The fact that even the writer/showrunner/executive producer of Utopia disagrees with you about whether it's a standalone shows the fallacy of making such a statement which is bordering on OR territory.

The R2 DVD release of Trial is nicely ambiguous on this matter as well and I don't think it will help if we have to change the numbers everytime something different is said by someone in the BBC. It's probably best to remove the numbering and not present a single set as official. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim — the numbers really should be removed, at least from the infobox. We can discuss their use at List of Doctor Who serials on the list's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you tie in the numbering to the list? Instead of '002 - The Daleks' have 'List#002 - The Daleks'? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I say we get rid of the numbers too. They're disputed, and unnecessary. U-Mos (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. They're nice to have as a simple guide to how many stories there have been before. And if you think Shada shouldn't be counted or if Trial is one story, you know how much to subtract. Davhorn (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI, an editor (Adamsappleturnover) has just renumbered all of the episodes from "Shada" onwards. (The editor has very few edits prior to this, and hasn't edited since 2008. However, he/she did broach the numbering issue in 2006 and 2008.) I don't have a position on this, but I have reverted the changes for now based on this discussion and TT's reverts a few days back. Thoughts? --Ckatz_spy 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be okay with removing at least Shada, as it was never aired. Trial, I'm ambivalent about. Sceptre 04:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that... I got overly enthused about getting the story numbers on Misplaced Pages in line with the latest Doctor Who Magazine and with all of the excitement of "Planet of the Dead" being promoted as the 200th story, I thought that was a sign of something more official than what appeared to be an arbitrary numbering system on Misplaced Pages. I frequenty visit and refer to the Doctor Who related Wikipages, but it is true I rarely post or change anything. I only felt so bold this time, because of the recent articles, and I just figured no one else had wanted to invest the time in the changes. I get the sense that story numbers will remain somewhat arbitrary regardless of what anyone says, but I just feel that it is better to err on being in sync with Doctor Who Magazine and BBC publicity. That is, I can find all sorts of references to "Planet of the Dead" being Story 200, and yet, nothing on that honor going to "Midnight".

I happen to agree with the thought process behind "Planet of the Dead" being 200 as well. "Shada" was never transmitted, or indeed completed, so it seems a bit generous to count it as a story when there are countless other "stories" that were never broadcast as well. Granted, Shada at least got before the cameras, so maybe it can have the number 108b. "Trial of a Timelord" went out under one title, though I get how some see it as several smaller stories. I certainly never would have thought of it as being anything but one story as that was how I first saw it, and seems to be how they marketed it at the time. I think giving it the number 143, with the four component parts being numbered as 143a, 143b, 143c and 143d would allow us to retain the articles as written.

The bottom line, for me at least, is that pretty much everyone agrees that the numbering is somewhat arbitrary, but since they are making a big deal about the latest story being the 200th, why not go along with that line of thinking, which at least has some backup from the official Doctor Who Magazine which breaks down all 200 stories nicely. It would be most useful to visitors to the Misplaced Pages pages, and perhaps we can all come together and celebrate the 250th and 300th stories in unison! Adamsappleturnover (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Basically, TLDR for me. However, personally, I tend to think that we should have the numbers in line with "Planet of the Dead" being the 200th story. Apart from consistency with the current thinking of the production team, this limits the oppurtunities for fans and IPs to go on one of those awful changing sprees! I don't feel too strongly though. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We already use the 123a/b/c notation anyway. Sceptre 07:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did the BBC announce Planet of the Dead as the 200th. story? I can't find anything on their Doctor Who pages. Davhorn (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

They didn't, as far as I can see (it's not in any press releases), although RTD told them they could (according to DWM). That the bus number is a reference to Planet of the Dead being the 200th episode is confirmed here. I don't think it matters that they didn't announce it, though, the change is still probably worth making. Maccy69 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. For the sake of having a single source, I think it's worth following the DWM list (and saying that's what we've done in the List of Doctor Who serials, preserving the current explanation that there are some disputes about this). I don't have a copy of it, but if they list Utopia as a separate story, we should follow suit; likewise we should take Shada out of the numbering if they do. It strikes me that all variations on the numbering are equally arbitrary, but this keeps things simple by basing it on a single source. It will take some work to do this, but hopefully fewer people will be inclined to change the numbering of Trial or Shada or Utopia than are currently trying to change Planet of the Dead. Maccy69 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points raised above. "Trial" certainly was broadcast as Parts 1-14. I know it is "four" different stories, but given that the opening titles of the episodes themselves count them as one, it seems that for counting purposes, they self-identify as one multi-part story.

Plus, as is written above, the BBC themselves call Dragonfire #147 now, not 150. This would be solved by making "Trial" all one story.

Agreed that all systems will be arbitrary, and that may be best to remove the # from the infobox. The list of all serials would then be the only place listing them all by #, and that could easily be updated to make Planet of the Dead #200, which (as is pointed out above) makes less arbitrary sense than calling Midnight #200. Hazelrenfield (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Both numbering systems have "official" sources behind them — the numbering that the list of serials currently uses is based on the numbers on the R1 DVDs, and also in The Discontinuity Guide and, less officially, Outpost Gallifrey. However, the first two sources number only the classic series' stories, and the latter is a fansite that's no longer being updated, so we may as well go with the DWM count on the list. I still think that because of the discrepancy it makes sense to remove the number from the infobox, though. Either that or come up with some boilerplate text that can go in each story article after Shada explaining why the number on the R1 DVD is "such-and-such" but the number in DWM's list is "so-and-so". Frankly, I don't think it's worth that effort, and would be better removed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to throw in a point nobody else seems to have. Production codes. Trial had 3, not 1 or 4. New series seems to have 1 for each episode. 1996 none at all. Peter jackson (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbering is a guide to the broadcast order of the stories for the general reader, production codes are not especially relevant to this. There is no official numbering system. Maccy69 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another point to bear in mind is the exact wording in any prose statements about the number of adventures. Think about statements like "The Doctor has had n adventures." Remember that there are a number of broadcast adventures he can't really be said to have had:

1. Mission to the Unknown
2. Love & Monsters
3. Blink
4. Turn Left

Peter jackson (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Doctor appears in all of those except for "Mission to the Unknown". Noting the one exception to the rule that Doctor Who is a programme about The Doctor in any general statements doesn't strike me as very useful. "The Doctor has had n adventures." is an in-universe phrase anyway, we should be talking about the number of television stories (ie a real-world perspective). Feel free to edit any statements of that nature, but I haven't seen any. Maccy69 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the numbers

Does anyone have any objections to changing the numbers? I can see a rough consensus for using the DWM numbers, at least for the meanwhile? Dragonfire's number as 147 under the system is consistent with the BBC's classic archive, which includes it as a "myth". Sceptre 18:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The only problem as I can see is Josiah's point, above, about the R1 DVD numbers no longer matching if we do change. I'm not sure how big a deal this is, but it's something to consider referencing if you do change the numbers. Regardless of this, I'm happy for you to go ahead and change them (if that's what you're planning) - possibly best to wait for some more replies here first, though. Maccy69 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrt the R1 DVDs, I'm a bit wary as they aren't R2 ;) Sceptre 15:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to remove the numbers from the infoboxes in the episode/serial articles, and use the DWM numbers for the list, since the list has room for an explanation of the different numbering systems. However, if other folks think that it's OK to go with DWM for the infoboxes, I won't object. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Doctor Who DVD releases also has story numbers. In this case, since it's specifically about the DVDs, I think it's appropriate to follow the story numbers on the Region 1 DVDs (I'll work up a note explaining that for the article). But the Region 1 DVDs don't have numbers for anything post-Survival. So should we remove the numbers in that list for DVDs that don't have them? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine, I should think - the value is in having an idea of where each DVD is in the series as a whole. Given that all the new stuff is available on DVD, it's pretty clear where that fits in without needing numbers. Your explanation about the R1 numbers should probably mention that the new series is not numbered as well. Maccy69 (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Do you think we need a citation for that, or is it OK uncited? I could add a citation to The Discontinuity Guide, but I've no idea where I'd find a source actually discussing the R1 DVD numbers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a Discontinuity Guide reference plus a reference to the back covers of The Leisure Hive and The Trial of a Timelord would be sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccy69 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's maybe overkill, but I've added a note about the Discontinuity Guide and R1 DVD numbers to all the individual episode guides from The Leisure Hive to Survival. It's reasonably discrete, I think, and should stop people looking at the back of their R1 DVD and then changing the number (or just getting confused). I don't think there's any need to do any of the episodes after Survival, since they aren't listed in The Discontinuity Guide and post-1989 R1 DVDs are unnumbered. So, no need for numbering notes on new episodes as articles are added, either. Maccy69 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be. As it should be pointed out, they are R1. Sceptre 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There quite a lot of Misplaced Pages-editing US Who fans though. I don't think it causes any problems to the articles to have done this, it's juast a little note next to the story number in the infobox. However the changes should be pretty easy to revert if you think they clutter the articles up too much. Maccy69 (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for an article on Tennant's finale?

Between these two interviews (one, two) and these sources covering the filming (three, four, five, six, seven, eight), we've got a lot of sources discussing David Tennant's final two-part story. As far as I can tell, the biggest barrier to creating an article is finding an appropriate name. We know that it will air over the Christmas holiday, so how about 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who)? (The Next Doctor article was started in July 2008 under the title Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special and later moved to 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who), and survived an AfD with, I think, fewer sources.) Note: Edokter changed my comment earlier, and made it historically inaccurate. I've fixed it back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are also some sources that could be found for the intervening special (the one with Lindsay Duncan in it), though I don't have those as readily at hand. Naming would be even more challenging for that one since we don't know when it will air, but we'll probably get a title after "Planet of the Dead" ("Doctor Who will return in..."). That article will probably be created very shortly after PotD airs; should we also create one for Tennant's final two-parter? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for it; if sources exist, then it's best to find a way to include them now than hold them off until things become clearer. Things can always be moved/split/merged, etc. at a later date, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 06:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to go for it, for reasons of CRYSTAL, but more importantly, because it's not that easy to source (which means that not only do we have a problem in putting anything substantial together, we also need to guard it from the hundreds of IPs who'll be adding trash or iffy material into it - for example, while the spoiler at the bottom here may well be true, it's not able to be reliably sourced, and I forsee a big headache/protection coming). There's also the issue of titling. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if sources like io9 and Den of Geek are debatable as reliable sources, Wired is an RS, isn't it? As for the Sun, in the past we've incorporated reports like this into articles not as facts but as claims: "On such-and-such a date, The Sun reported that so-and-so was spotted during filming for this episode."

I agree that once created, the article will have to be defended against bad edits — but that's always the case. As for WP:CRYSTAL, that says:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

The event is indeed notable and almost certain to take place, and preparation for it is in progress. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is - do we actually know that Tennants final episode is the Christmas Special? I don't think there is a definative date for any of the specials after Planet of the Dead. So Having Tennants last episode in a page entitled "Christmas special" would be unsourced. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't. The dates of the last three keep changing slightly. Personally, I don't think we should create an episode article until we have two of the following three: a title, a summary, and an air date. For example, for The Next Doctor, we had the first two pretty early on so we could create it pretty early; conversely, we couldn't create an article for the Stolen Earth until June 12th. Sceptre 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, on BBC Breakfast this morning RTD said that the second special will air "November-ish, and then a huge two-part finale at Christmas." We probably won't get dates any more specific than that until autumn at the earliest. We don't have a summary, but we do have a press release for the second special, and we'll have a title after "Planet of the Dead" airs, so we can certainly create that one then. I suppose I'll work up a draft version for the Christmas special in my own sandbox over the next few days, and I'll see what people think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please contribute to the two discussions at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 11#2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) → The Waters of Mars and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christmas Special 2009 Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've composed a draft for the Christmas two-parter in my sandbox. Personally, I think it's sufficiently well sourced to go live, but the resounding "delete" vote here makes me question my judgment. Could people take a look at this and comment here about whether it seems appropriate? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your draft is something completely different to the one deleted at AFD. The AFDed version was basically speculation and nothing else and almost all delete !votes were because of that. Your draft on the other hand is well-sourced and without any speculation. I suggest you move it to article space at 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) and see what happens, thus allowing others to take note and work on it. Maybe someone will take it to AFD (happened to The Waters of Mars as well after all) but even if there was consensus to delete in such an AFD, you could re-userfy it. Regards SoWhy 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I wouldn't AFD it. Sceptre 09:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. However, this deals with a two parter so 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) as the title doesn't seem to me to be quite right. What about 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) or (Ugh) 2009-10 Christmas specials (Doctor Who)? Edgepedia (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the former suggestion is better. As long as we have no dates, we just know it will air over Christmas and not whether the second part will really be aired in 2010. Also, 2009-10 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) would sound like the second part was to air Christmas 2010. Regards SoWhy 10:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also looks good to me. I said it was too soon in the AfD, but I didn't realise how much information with sources there was. Regarding the title, I think the singular is fine since the article begins "A two-part Doctor Who special will be broadcast" and this is also how Russell T Davies and Julie Gardner have been describing it. However, I'm not that bothered: I think Josiah should create the article with the title he feels is best and then we can discuss it on the talk page if other editors feel differently. Maccy69 (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Clive Banks says the 2nd part is New Year's Eve, which would make the dates from earlier statements wrong. I don't suppose he count as RS, but his rumours on previous occasions have often turned out right. Peter jackson (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That'd be a discussion for the article, once its created I think (and for the others that currently say Specials 2009-10). However, not an RS and if it's New Years Eve I'll be surprised, it's not a big night for TV. Maccy69 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've created the article at 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who), per Edgepedia's suggestion, and repointed the redirect 2009 Christmas special (Doctor Who) to that name. Have at it! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Misplaced Pages:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

New look

I've re-organised the project page to look a bit more snazzier, like WP:LOST or WP:SIMPSONS. Thoughts? Like it? Hate it? Sceptre 00:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's ... very reminiscent of the Portal. TAMUs' is okay. I noticed you've removed the List of Articles and its link to recent related changes; or, if it is there, it's not easy to find. That was a useful resource. Similarly, you've spunoff the style guide—such as it is, into a standalone page but it lacks the history of changes made to it over its lifetime.

…I wouldn't say I'm overly keen on it, since you ask. Maybe everyone else will find it peachy though. There're no section edit links on this talkpage now, which I'm sure there were before too. –Whitehorse1 02:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah hah. Fixed. Thank you :) Sceptre 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I kind-of like it. The Article Statistics bit in the Achievements section is too wide, though, and the empty space below said section is a bit unfortunate. Nevertheless, well done! - weebiloobil (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On my puny earth monitor (800x600) there's a table in the left column that's half obscured by the right column. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Need serious bugfixing... even with 1024x768, tables are fighting for space, pushing each other out of the way, resulting in misplaced labels. I propose a single-column layout. And does the talk page really need the same look? — Edokter • Talk • 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now, but the links are still misplaced. Are you using custom CSS? — Edokter • Talk • 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Modern. Sceptre 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant for the portal boxes. Anyway, I'm in the middle of trying to fix the issues at Portal:Box-header‎. — Edokter • Talk • 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed manual of style additions

I think we could further expand our MoS to include guidance for two as-of-now unmentioned issues:

Images

We should include guidance on the inclusion of images as it's often a hot topic. Basically:

• Codification of the pre-episode screenshot moratorium we enacted for Planet of the Dead. It's a good idea, and the issue of whether FU images can pass NFCC before transmission often results in a "no" consensus.
• Guidance on the use of images post-transmission: specifically, making sure that screenshots don't rely on solely the plot; making sure that the images don't have simply a rationale for why they shouldn't be deleted, but why that specific image should be used; and recommending that people write the text first and upload later.
• Guidance on the use of free images; none may be bad; a lot will be worse. Ask to include only relevant images; for example, we have recognisable photos of filming locations in "Planet of the Dead"; or "The Stolen Earth"'s picture of Richard Dawkins next to a section about Richard Dawkins (as a visual aid).

Filming locations

This is a relatively novel idea. I think that if we can find a location on Google Maps, we should geotag it; hell, I've been doing it for some time as a matter of editorial preference. However, I was talking to a user on Windows Live Messenger who said that the way locations were geographically tagged filming locations in the "The Stolen Earth" article was too obtrusive, so I used the reference grouping feature of Cite.php (<ref group="a" name="b" />) to move them into a new section of the article; see the section now. I've transferred this to Planet of the Dead and 2009 Christmas specials, which I was writing at the time, too. It could be a good idea to talk about how we could include these too. Sceptre 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% on all of your image suggestions; those should definitely be in our MoS. I don't know enough about the advantages of geotagging to comment, except to say that your new way of grouping them together is so much better. --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brian on both counts — the image guidance is a good idea, and I don't have strong feelings about the geotagging. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who books

I just created a stub for The Discontinuity Guide (I'll be linking references to it in other articles later), and I noticed that the description in Category:Doctor Who books says that it's for fiction. Of course, the vast majority of books in that category and its subcats are fiction; even something like Monsters books (Doctor Who) exists in a halfway realm between fiction and non-fiction. But The Discontinuity Guide and books like The Writer's Tale (which could certainly have its own Misplaced Pages page) are also "Doctor Who books". I'm thinking that perhaps we should rename the current category to something like "Doctor Who fiction books", and have a new category of "Doctor Who non-fiction books" or "Doctor Who reference books" (on the model of Category:Star Trek reference books). What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. There have certainly been enough non-fiction books written about Doctor Who to warrant its own category. Davhorn (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably have a whack at The Writer's Tale tommorow or Wednesday. Sceptre 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely. D'you suppose we need to bother with the formalities of CfD, or can we just change the categories ourselves? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's uncontroversial; we shouldn't need to go through CfD. Sceptre 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, then: I'll split the category into Category:Doctor Who fiction books and Category:Doctor Who non-fiction books. Any thoughts on which way the "Monsters books" article should go? (I'm leaning towards non-fiction, but it's debatable.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-fiction, as books about fiction but not containing fictional elements of their own, I'd say. Maccy69 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. I've moved the articles and subcategories to their new homes, including a category for Category:Publishers of Doctor Who books. I hope that name is OK — after I made it, I wondered whether it should be "Doctor Who book publishers" instead. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's over 200 assorted non fiction Doctor Who books and around 90 juvenile or activity books. The 'monsters' books are non fiction, they're not stories, more like zoo guides. If anyone's got a real interest in the books, fiction or non fiction, they might like to drop me a line. Nick mallory (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Novelisation numbers

Can we get a better term than "release number" for the novelisation infobox? The current term implies it's the order the books were released in but for most Targets this isn't the case - the first 73 books were retroactively numbered alphabetically and various other factors (Vengeance on Varos, Slipback, the Missing Season books) deflect many later numbers from being strictly accurate. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just change it to, the non-specific, "number"? –Whitehorse1 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Volume number" or "novelisation number" might work too. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoniverse

Someone want to have a go at stripping out the OR and guesswork from this article? lots of "fans fink" and "it suggests". If nobody here wants to do it, I'll do it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Stealth changes of Brigadier's status

I've noticed that Special:Contributions/MarkR06 (talk) has again started slipping in and moving the Brigadier from Companion to Guest within infoboxes, without edit summaries or any indication of consensus or sources for such a change. I also see from his history that he's been reverted and block-warned for edit warring this same change before. I reverted the change at The Five Doctors per prior history there but didn't go through his edits of other episodes (e.g. Mawdryn Undead). John Darrow (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When did the Brigadier become a Companion again? - Arcayne () 06:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image up for deletion

File:Christina de Souza.jpg is up for speedy deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to evaluate this

I have just had a once-over of the Companion article, and it is utterly stuffed with uncited information, speculation and the sort of pointless, idiosyncratic debate that would be far better off being discussed on a Doctor Who fan forum or message board. Seriously, "Disputed Companions?" Naught but fans would have a truly compelling reason to debate this issue. And that's just one section. Though my hatred of fanboi gushing are the stuff of legend, I've opened a discussion on the article talk page to try to find some sanity in amongst the otherwise fairly good article. I would welcome some discussion on the topic, and try to find a way to get the article back to encyclopedic health. - Arcayne () 07:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who spoofs

Doctor Who spoofs has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Result was no consensus 86.131.237.120 (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List of music featured on Doctor Who

List of music featured on Doctor Who has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Result was no consensus 86.131.237.120 (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

River Song (Doctor Who)

Does this character have any real world notability? she appeared in two episodes and it's doubtful we will ever see her again. I was just going to merge her to a "list of" article but thought I should mention it here first. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the character doesn't really have real-world notability; the article seems to have been created because the character is treated, in her one-story appearance, as a future companion (or more), and other Doctor Who companions have their own articles. However, that's because they have real-world notability, not because they're Doctor Who companions. River Song has a section at Companion (Doctor Who)#River Song, which is probably appropriate; there doesn't seem to be an appropriate "list of" article which is formatted for the right level of detail (e.g. List of Doctor Who supporting characters is formatted as links to full articles, where such exist). If Silence in the Library and Forest of the Dead were a single article, we could redirect River Song (Doctor Who) to that, but it might be odd to have a redirect to only the first or second part of the story. Hmm. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say redirect to either Companion (Doctor Who)#River Song or Silence in the Library, as her first appearance. Maccy69 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redir to Silence in the Library sounds good. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not redir to Companion (Doctor Who)#River Song she has a section here? Not sure if this is the last we've heard of her in the TV series or spin off media, redirecting but will do for now and retain the current article in the edit history. Edgepedia (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Edgepedia; putting it in a section specifically devoted to that character sounds more encyclopedic. . - Arcayne () 13:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with this. I disagree that it's doubtful we'll see her again, but that's not for here. U-Mos (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

When U-Mos, Treasuryt Tag and I all agree on something, its a pretty safe bet that the safest course is there. ;) - Arcayne () 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Update - 2010 season shooting

Given that it is now widely publicized that Alex Kingston was on set for the initial days of shooting of the new season with Matt Smith and Karen Gillan, I would kindly ask if this question could be reconsidered. Hektor (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only reliable source for that explicitly says that it's not clear whether she will return as this character or another one. We may have to wait for series 5 before reconsidering is really possible. Regards SoWhy 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Just to note that the initial argument " it's doubtful we will ever see her again " no longer sounds that good now. The shoot of this week is around a wreckage of a spaceship called Byzantium according to the pictures, which is an obvious reference to the River Song character and Silence in the Library. ("Crash of the Byzantium, have we done that yet?" ) Hektor (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I deeply regret to see no answer to my remarks. With the Byzantium markings we have unambiguous proof that this character will be returning in the 2010 season, and this is the first character from the RTD era we know for sure will return, besides the Doctor himself. I think that makes River Song notable enough for an article. Hektor (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that it's not that "obvious" considering that there are a lot of things named after Byzantium. DonQuixote (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And which happen to form the wreck of a spacecraft on a beach ? Sorry, this is still no answer, there you are just playing silly. Hektor (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Er yeah, she never said anything about a spaceship. At the moment it's pure speculation and a lot of jumping to conclusions. Sorry, academic background, I need more proof. (Recalling last year's "Next Doctor" speculation....) DonQuixote (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Eighthdoctorcompanions

Template:Eighthdoctorcompanions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. U-Mos (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Doctorwhocompanions re-structuring

I firmly believe that this template is a bit insane right now, when what is really required is to be able to see all the companions at a brief glance. I changed the template to this yesterday, which has been reverted, but I strongly believe this version serves a more useful purpose than the rather messy stacked templates that are currently there. The detail of when companions joined and left etc. can be left to the seperate templates. Thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "messy stacked" version as you call it is much more useful to the reader because it offers more information without taking up more space (collapsed is collapsed, no matter which template). As such, noone is forced to view the full template but those who choose to do can benefit from getting more out of it. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with U-Mos here. Navboxes are for navigation, not information, and should fundamentally not include anything other than what is necessary to enable the reader to navigate between articles; these timelines are a clear violation of this, and provide chronological information that is better left to the articles themselves. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not against the smaller templates ie. Template:Firstdoctorcompanions etc. I think they're very useful to be placed in the companions' articles. It's this bigger one that I think calls for something a bit more streamlined. U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That stacked template is not usable. I open it to expand and my brain crawls into a hole and dies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Phil — the "stacked" version is insane. U-Mos' version is better. The only information that's lost in U-Mos' change is a graphical representation of which companions appeared in which stories. That's present in the individual templates and, without the graphical presentation, in Companion (Doctor Who) (the only article in which {{doctorwhocompanions}} is used). I'm wondering whether we need the composite template at all; the smaller templates are useful in various articles, but the information in the full template could probably be presented better as a table in Companion (Doctor Who). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you can cut it further - I do not think the Doctor divisions are useful as a navigation template - just put the Companions in chronological order of first appearance and drop the Doctor divisions, then put the non-TV companions in a separate section of the template. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, in fact if anything such a long list of articles with too few separating factors may be more confusing than specifing "their" Doctors. U-Mos (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Size is an issue. The template at its current size strains the display capabilities of low resolution monitors. An overwhelmingly large template is not useful. Fewer words and a smaller space is an easier tool. We need to stop treating templates as banner ads for article series. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No no no, what I'm saying is my smaller alternative is not too big to be useful. U-Mos (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need the mammoth template at all? Sure, it's kind of neat once it's all expanded to be able to see each Doctor's companions organized by story, but what's the advantage of having it presented in a collapsible table instead of, say, a section in Companion (Doctor Who), or even a separate article (Table of Doctor Who companions, perhaps?) What benefit does having this collapsible table, used in Companion (Doctor Who) and only there, give us? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the smaller version of Doctorwhocompanions could potentially be used on all companion articles, in addition to the in-depth Doctor specific ones. Could we reach a consensus to decide where to go with this? U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the template to my version, mainly to draw attention to this subject so an agreement can be reached. U-Mos (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted again. I moved your version to {{Doctor Who companions}}. I have no problem with new proposals, as long as it doesn't undo other people's work. Please be a little more considerate in the future. — Edokter • Talk • 14:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Work has not be undone; nothing is lost as your reverts have proved. Surely having two templates is an even bigger waste? All I wanted was to stimulate a consensus here, and if anything a consensus is swaying towards my version at the present time. U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of Outpost Gallifrey as a source

Just a heads up for any WikiProject members involved with policing the sources used in DW-related articles: the owner of the Outpost Gallifrey news site and related Doctor Who Forum has announced that he's closing both sites as of July 31 (see ). Due to its long history (since 1996) the news page has become one of the pages of record for Doctor Who related information, particularly recent news, and as such its articles have often been cited in various Who articles on Misplaced Pages. It appears the site won't be archived, so that renders it no longer viable as a source because the information to verify won't be accessible. I'm concerned that this could, potentially, leave some Who (and related) articles vulnerable to either AFD challenge or content in same vulnerable to deletion. Most OG articles tend to cite other sources anyway, so I'd recommend that articles - especially those based on the revival - be checked and, if possible, any OG citations be replaced with others, especially if the OG citation in turn cites another publication. (This is gonna be a pain for the Tardis Wikia, though thankfully it's more forgiving when it comes to sources since it's run by "the converted" as opposed to here where there are active movements to expunge Misplaced Pages of anything that's deemed "trivial", which pretty much covers anything related to pop culture. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That would be a perfect job for the WebCiteBOT, unfortunately there is a huge backlog and it's unlikely that it had already encountered all those links. Tardis Wikia could do so manually, using WebCite, but it's probably a tedious task. Someone with a bot could probably download copies of all DW articles and check how many such links really exists (if no such bot exists, I'm sure we can get one written quickly, it sounds like a simple task). What do others think? Regards SoWhy 12:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... there's over 500 links linking to gallifreyone.com... D.M.N. (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's 1265 links to be precice. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who at FAR

I have nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting Doctor Who back to featured status

It is really a shame that the article got demoted, but not without merit; the article needs an entire overhaul. However, this is not the work of one person alone; this will really need to be a team effort. Hopefully, we can get the article featured again by Christmas, if we work hard on it. In many ways, this year being an "off-year" for Doctor Who is a blessing, as we don't have to focus on episode articles that much (Children of Earth notwithstanding). So, please highlight which areas of the featured article criteria you'd like to work on below, so we can better organise this article drive (please note that, even though I'm putting myself down for several of the sections, I don't intend to intrude on anyone else if they'd want to help on the same sections too). Sceptre 15:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC areas

Prose

Sceptre ;

Comprehensiveness

Research

Neutrality

Sceptre ;

Lead section

Sceptre ;

Structure

Sceptre ;

Citations

Images

Sceptre ;

Length

Discussion

We should also focus on updating our other FAs so that they are not delisted, which mostly takes the form of making sure the articles are referenced. I've already done Dalek, which leaves Douglas Adams, Sydney Newman, and TARDIS to be checked over. Time Lord, a GA, should be checked over too. Sceptre 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned Time Lord, Sceptre. That was on my list of things to look at when I got the time, to check if it met current GA standards, or needed updating as you say. It's one of those on the GA Sweeps list anyway, which is where those participating check through articles promoted before the late 2007 standards overhaul. I'll take a look at it now. –Whitehorse1 17:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. From my initial look, opening a reassessment made sense. Much of the article is original research (people speculating), even if all that were deleted, it's almost exclusively sourced to the episodes or spinoff books themselves. Updating it as a whole to standards would require substantial work and new material. Detailed comments (inc. for images) are on the review linked from the articlehistory. As overhauling it within a small time period seemed improbable, I delisted. –Whitehorse1 20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

For Doctor Who is it worth putting one of those sources subpage templates on the talkpage, so people can chip in by adding RSs they've come across? –Whitehorse1 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice for Kylie Minogue

I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Brigadier/Yates/Benton - companions?

OK then, over at Companion (Doctor Who), these three have been listed as companions since March. There was no real consensus for adding them, as seen at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Unsourced Companions, Excluded Companions. So I removed them. But there's been opposition, which to summarise past the unnecessary (which unfortunately has descended into less-than desirable territory, which I may have unintentionally played a part in) basically boils down to the BBC calling him a companion in a section of their website. I'm fairly impartial here (in that section I am merely fighting for their removal to fall in to line with the other articles as there is no consensus for change), but it seems the issue needs clarifying. So discuss. Companions or not? U-Mos (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Most sources say no. So, I'm going with most sources. As for the website, at least for the classic show part, it's an after-the-fact site that doesn't cite reliable sources (at least for the above) such as in-house documentation, etc., whilst the other sources do. DonQuixote (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How many sources, exactly, are there that exhausitvely list companions, and what do they say on all three? Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say DonQuixote makes a good argument here; just because it's the BBC, doesn't always mean it's above all other sources. After all, the source wouldn't have been made by anyone involved in the programme in the 70s, would it? But the most important thing is that they are listed in the same way everywhere on Misplaced Pages. U-Mos (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the BBC website gives a list of companions only up to 1996. If someone can find a continuation list for the new series (I couldn't at a quick look) then it might be considered that the combined list is "official". Generally, though, there's disagreement among reliable sources on who's a companion. Not just UNIT, but also Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Jackie, Mickey, & probably others. It's just not a simple question. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC treats the new series as a separate series, but maintains a comparable list on their new series page. My point here remains, though - as far as I can tell we have two sources - the John Nathan Turner book (which I'm the only one who has cited, and I'm citing it from decade-old memory) and the current BBC list. Right now I'm at a loss for a source that doesn't consider the Brigadier a companion, and it's an even 50/50 split on Benton and Yates. Thus far I know someone (I think Don) has mentioned some early 70s production sources, which I've previously discussed my hesitations about, most notably that it matters when in Doctor Who's history the role of companion was defined as such and distinctly from co-stars. Phil Sandifer (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As to how many sources don't list the Brig et al, off the top of my head, the Third Doctor article recently published by DWM, DW:25 Glorious Years, Thirty Years in the TARDIS, the various DVD documentaries referring to that era (particularly those interviewing Letts and Dicks). Of course, listing the Brig as a companion isn't a recent thing since I remember JNT's book doing it.

Heh, just now checked DW:The Television Companion...that source just lists "Regular Cast", which the Brig et al. aren't listed as. That's an interesting way to go. DonQuixote (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the definition of regular cast? The Brigadier appeared in every episode of Season 7 & every story of Season 8. What's more regular than that?

Phil, can you give a link to this BBC website list for the new series? All I could find is a list of characters, which isn't the same. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's . "Companions" is one section on the list of the left side, and if you click it you'll get the BBC-official list of new series Companions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Though as I said, the Letts/Dicks interviews are problematic to me because I think there are some real epistemological issues in the evolution of the series that are in play there. For what it is worth, if I were to try to go on an eyeballing of fan consensus and my recollection of the sources, I would say that the Brigadier is more often than not considered a companion, and that Benton and Yates are less often than not treated as companions, but that they are in turn more often considered companions than Adam or the one-shot companions from the new series. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone denying the "one-shot" companions their status, especially as RTD himself (iirc) has referred to something along the lines of a "succession of one-off companions" between series 4 and 5. As for Adam, he may be omitted die to his short time-frame but I don't think there's any dispute over him either. Besides, adding up sources is not the best way to clarify these things; we have to consider sources and their relevance. U-Mos (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I've generally preferred to list disputed/inconsistently listed companions as companions and comment on the dispute - because this seems to me the most informative option for the reader. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So now we've got an "official" list of companions, which could be used for that article. However, it couldn't consistently be used across the project, because the website doesn't say which companions are companions in which stories. The policy of counting them as companions in every story they appear in would be inconsistent with those lisings, because K9, who appears in both old & new programmes, is listed as a companion only for the old. Peter jackson (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I have nominated List of Doctor Who supporting characters for deletion. Discussion is here. U-Mos (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Adams

I have nominated Douglas Adams for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More companions - Steven/Adric's beginnings

Yet more companion discussion... prompted by Phil's edit at Companion (Doctor Who), I've had a look at Steven Taylor (Doctor Who) and Adric's staus in their respective first stories (The Chase (Doctor Who) and Full Circle (Doctor Who). Both enter the TARDIS unbenknownst to the Doctor and join "properly" in the next serial. But should that matter? The situation is largely similar to Nyssa, who after discussion was included as a companion in The Keeper of Traken. But as these two actually go in to the TARDIS, surely they are even-more companions that Nyssa at their beginnings? And both, like Nyssa (the deciding factor for that discussion), are listed as beginning from their first appearances on the BBC website (). Plus, Ben and Polly travel in the TARDIS without the Doctor's knowledge in The War Machines. Why any different? So I've gone ahead and made the changes on the episode articles and the companion templates, as well as altering Steven's entry at Companion (Doctor Who). Thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this - sources > subjective fan judgments. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But which sources? They contradict each other so often in such matters that it's unsafe to assume anything unobvious is correct on the basis of a single source. As I pointed out above, the BBC website doesbn't give a full listing of who's a companion in which stories, but is inconsistent with the assumption of once a companion always a companion. Peter jackson (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I based the judgment on the BBC's episode guide and descriptions of particular episodes for Nyssa. I suspect at Talk:Nyssa of Traken you can find the disucission of that, and extrapolate to Steven and Adric. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is actually here. And it's nowhere near as in depth as I recalled. In fact, I wouldn't say there is a consensus there. So it's all quite complicated. But the point stands that as long as Nyssa is listed as a companion in Traken, I'd say Steven and Adric have to be in their first appearances also. U-Mos (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like multiple sources listing first appearance as an appearance as a companion exist for all three of them, and a few sources disagree. In any case, for the purposes of an infobox or table, such disputed material should be added and footnoted with clarification, not left off because not all sources agree. Phil Sandifer (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And how are you going to apply that method to the Brigadier? Peter jackson (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, put him in (as the sources say) and clarify that not all sources list him in a footnote. In an infobox or table, it is possible to add a caveat to an addition, but not possible to add a caveat to an omission. Thus for ambiguous cases, inclusion should be the norm. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you've got the point I was trying to make, which was that there's a distinction between whether someone counts as a companion, & whether they count as a companion in a particular story. There are a lot of sources that give lists of companions, & it's possible to survey them & cover different views. How many sources are there that say who was a companion in which stories? Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that describe production such that they go into details like "Adric was created and introduced in Full Circle" whilst "Nyssa was created as a character for Keeper of Traken but the producer liked her so much that she was cast as a companion for the following story", etc. In other words, there are sources that provide more than lists. DonQuixote (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed lots of sources containing individual information, but how much consistency are you going to get in such matters? To be purely hypothetical, it's perfectly imaginable that the following situation might arise.

1. some reliable sources say X is a companion
2. no reliable source says X was a companion in any particular story

What are you going to do then? Peter jackson (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) The key point in any good source is that they tell you why they think so. If source A just lists X as a companion but source B omits X as a companion because of this or that (e.g. production documents), then source B is the better source (or vice versa). That's why lists, in-and-of-themselves, aren't the final word; you also have to have the sources citing other sources (particularly primary sources)--or at the very least, giving you their criteria for X is Y.

So to apply this to your example, why do those particular sources say X is a companion? DonQuixote (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, with which I have some sympathy, but is it Misplaced Pages policy? Peter jackson (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about Misplaced Pages policy, but it's Academic protocol. DonQuixote (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

According to User:Viriditas (Misplaced Pages talk:No original research/Archive 44#Follow-up), "... every standard textbook reference for identifying and using reliable sources doesn't remotely resemble the one on Misplaced Pages ..." Peter jackson (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be of interest to look at Radio Times. From the run for the first 2 Doctors in the cuttings archive, I find

1. Ian, Barbara, Susan, Vicki & Zoe get companion-style billing in their 1st stories
2. Steven, Dodo, Polly, Ben, Jamie & Victoria don't
3. Katarina isn't billed as a companion at all
4. Samantha Briggs has companion-style billing in Faceless Ones 4 but not the rest of the story

It looks very much as if what counts is whether people were expected to be around for some time. Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only add that in one of the DVD documentaries it's mentioned that Jamie was added as a companion during the production of The Highlanders, and in another one it's mentioned how Samantha Briggs was in consideration to be expanded into a companion during production but Pauline Collins declined the offer. DonQuixote (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Peter jackson (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey sources

The closure of Outpost Gallifrey and related pages on July 31 demonstrates the problems with using online sources. As noted a few threads above, more than 1,200 links to OG have been identified, including citations for statements that people not in the know (i.e. drive-by editors and citation junkies) could now either deface with clunky "citation needed" tags or, worse yet, delete. Hopefully there aren't any project pages that rely on OG for sustaining notability. It was suggested that a bot be created to handle the links and I agree. Ideally the key would be to replace the links with, perhaps, Archive.org "Wayback Machine" links. But that's not always reliable. Failing that, perhaps a bot could be programmed to simply add the notation "site closed July 31, 2009" to the citations as a stopgap? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We're waiting for Gallifrey Base to go through the old DWNP archives and sort them out, but it may be some time. Sceptre 08:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Shaun Lyon say in the closing announcement that a university would be keeping a back-up of the site, or the news pages at least, for reference purposes? Does it matter if it's not on the web if it still exists, books can be referenced as sources after all, even very rare books of which only a few copies exist in museums/collections, and old newspapers which only exist in reference collections, in what way is this different to that?Number36 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Whogasm AfD

• See: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Whogasm. --(Article Alerts offline?) Whitehorse1 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Celebrity list AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who (3rd nomination) for your delectation. Totnesmartin (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode infoboxes

Edokter has changed the episode infoboxes to bullet the doctors and companions (eg. The Stolen Earth with many companions, 2009 Christmas specials (Doctor Who) with two Doctors). I'd say that's a major enough change to warrant a discussion. In my view, it's hideous, unwieldy and totally unnecessary, especially where there is only one Doctor/companion. Other people's thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at the discussion further up the page this has obviously been the source of some discussion and disagreement already, re whether certain characters 'count' as companions, and even if they do for some stories, do they in all episodes. I would suggest, instead of being divided into Doctor/Companions/Guests, the template be dived into regulars/guests, this bypasses the divisive question and is much easier to discern and reference objectively. I have also seen some of the episode guide books use this distinction so it isn't without outside precedence.Number36 (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree (though you could have Doctor/Other regulars/Guests as there's not dispute about whether a character is the Doctor or not!). It's much less controversial, and basically gives the same entries. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Guest" is more out-of-universe, which how WP's fiction articlesare meant to be written. Also, yes it would cut down the "who's a companion and who isn't" arguments.

How do you define regular? Appearing in 2, 3, 4, ... successive stories/episodes? Appearing in all the stories/episodes in a season/series? ... Peter jackson (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a contractual matter. Regulars are contracted to appear in the show over a specified period of time (usually a number of years), guests for a story or even episodes. The former are paid retention fees, the latter appearance fees. Of course, it's not as easy to find out that information! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Best source is brief history of time (travel). I think your definition makes sense. It can be used to decide whether someone was a regular on 1st appearance. The Brigadier & the Master would be regular some of the time. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the 'companions or not' discussion, my change was purely a cosmetic one, and only designed to get rid of cramming the actor/character into the right column causing unwieldy linebreaks. So let's please not confuse the issues here. — Edokter • Talk • 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem: McGann. Peter jackson (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The TVM isn't an episode of the TV series, even though it exists in continuity with them. I suggest it just have a normal cast list.Number36 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting concept. I wonder how you define being part of the series. If you look at the Radio Times billing in the cuttings archive it looks exactly like part of the series. Peter jackson (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Well not being made as an episode of, or as part of, a TV series would be a pretty good place to start when saying something isn't an episode of a TV series. I wouldn't have considered it controversial in the least that the TVM isn't an episode of the TV series, classic or new, it was a TV movie made seven years after the original TV series had ended and nine years before the new TV series began. This hardly counts as a concept. As it was a one off film, it has no regular cast members to be defined as being opposed to guest stars in the way a continuing TV series can be described as having. So currently the way its template box is laid out is a bit inaccurate, and redundant in separately identifying the Doctor since it has the character each actor plays next to their name. It has one of the main cast of the TVM, Eric Roberts, listed as a guest star for goodness sake. And I would've thought identifying Grace as a companion would have been controversial with some fans, I wouldn't, but I know there are some who would argue the point.Number36 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've just realised that all the episode templates list the character's name next to the actor, so what point does it serve to list the person already specifically identified as playing the Doctor in a separate list identifying him as playing the Doctor? This makes me think even more strongly that the only break-down needed for episodes of the TV show is regulars/guests or some equivalent.Number36 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your exact wording carefully. I see you're using series in the plural.

As for Eric Roberts as a guest star, that's how he's described in the on-screen credits (as are others). Peter jackson (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Scream of the Shalka uncanonical?

I added this over on the talk page there, but I notice older comments there don't seem to have been answered by anyone so I thought to myself "self, try putting it on the WikiProject page, where it may be dealt with, or at the very least seen by someone who may be interested". Which seemed like a good idea so I thought back "Okay" and here I am. Anyway -Concerning this bit this bit from the article;

Given that the BBC and the producers of the televised Doctor Who have discounted Scream of the Shalka as being part of the franchise's continuity, this is one of the few Doctor Who novels for which the canonicity (or in this case, lack thereof) has firmly been established.

Seems a bit original research-y, 'given that' indicates that there's been some synthesis to reach a conclusion, canonicity doesn't equate to continuity, and to declare something un-canonical, you are implicitly saying there is a canon for it to be excluded from. This could be seen as a bit POV in relation to the whole canon/no canon debate. It also seems a faulty piece of synthesis even if there were a canon though, for example there's plenty of Arthurian myths that don't exist in continuity to each other but are none-the-less considered part of the canon of genuine Arthurian mythology, or canon Sherlock Holmes stories which differ in continuity (not to mention televised DW for that matter). Also, is there a reference for the BBC and the producers 'discounting' it from the 'franchise's continuity'? I mean it obviously isn't in the same continuity as the current TV series, but 'the franchise' is a term that encompasses more than just the TV series so this seems clumsily worded, and it seems like an odd thing for 'the BBC' or the producers to even bother commenting on anyway. I could imagine Paul Cornell or RTD mentioning SotS casually and describing how it was superceded by the new series, but that's about it and wouldn't really connected to any canon debate.Number36 (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "franchise" must include all DW stories licensed by the BBC, including eg the comic strips featuring the Dr as a human being accompanied by his grandchildren John & Gillian, the Peter Cushing films, the CIN spoofs &c: everything except outright piracy. There's no way this could have a continuity. A number of websites have attempted to fit all stories into a single sequence, but on examination they all turn out to give up on some.

The only other "canon" with any official status is the actual TV series 1963-, including 1996, but excluding Shada & most of the CIN (5 Drs is included). This does have a continuity, & Shalka isn't in it. All other canons are unofficial 3rd party creations. Peter jackson (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All "canons" in Doctor who are un-official - the BBC have not stated what is and isn't canon. Shalks doesn't fit with the TV series (for obvious reasons) but one of the novels suggest that the 8th Doctor had 3 alternate 9th Doctors in his future (that is Eccleston on TV, the "shalka" doctor here, and the Curse of Fatal death doctors) - so it's entirely possible that it is "canon". 86.177.158.99 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the BBC have identified a 200th story, which implies a canon of the TV series as stated above. Peter jackson (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the 200th TV story - doesn't say anything about canon. 86.177.158.99 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

*cough* This from our WikiProject page:

Canon

To avoid the tricky issue of canonicity, we should identify the source of the information if it comes from anywhere else besides the television series. Televised episodes and specials (barring spoofs and specially-made episodes) are generally considered canon by the BBC and the vast majority of the Doctor Who fandom, while the Peter Cushing films of the 1960s are not. Everything else is of unclear canonicity, with opinion ranging from absolute canon to non-canon. In practice, anything from the televised stories need not be sourced or distinguished, although the relevant episodes should be referenced (with citations to the appropriate episodes or serials). We should also limit the non-television series material, where possible, to material officially licensed by the BBC. This excludes fan videos, but will include the Doctor Who Magazine comic strip, the Big Finish Productions audio plays and story collections, the Telos novellas and the Target Books, Virgin New Adventures and BBC Books novels and short stories. Story titles, like the television stories, should be italicised and author credit given. The only exceptions to the "officially licensed" would be material from BBV, which is generally of a higher standard than typical fan productions. However, any notable creation may be included, but only if we are clear on its origin.

ie, Don't mention canon unless you're referencing. RTD himself has mentioned the discrepancies between various production teams' ideas of canon, in particular how Dragonfire can be the 150th story, but "Planet of the Dead" the 200th. Number36 is correct; this shouldn't be in the article - weebiloobil (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems straight forward enough. So I've just deleted it.00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack Harkness featured article candidate

Hi guys, I've finally got around to nominating Jack Harkness for featured article status. Please leave comments here!~Zythe 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Idea for season templates

I've noticed the season templates for the new series (Template:Doctor Who (series 1), Template:Doctor Who (series 2), Template:Doctor Who (series 3), Template:Doctor Who (series 4), Template:Doctor Who (2009 specials) etc). My suggestion would be to have a link to the previous and next templates by having an arrow that you could click on (← Season 1 , Season 3 →). any comments on this?188.220.182.146 (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That would not serve our readers, as they would be directed to the templates themselves, not the articles. The less non-content links we present to our readers, the better. — Edokter • Talk • 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But the exact same style of arrow-links are on the companion templates. Maybe use something like what Lostpedia uses in it's season templates (i.e. here)? --cartoonmoney (talk)

Most-viewed articles

A while back I came across the toolserver-based 'Popular pages' tool, which generates monthly lists of WikiProject articles by page views. It's like the tool that allows you to see per month views for 1 article, but as a comprehensive by-project list. I took the liberty of adding a request for this WikiProject. I've set it up so 750 items can be included on the page at one time. It refreshes the list on a project subpage with full data monthly at:

• WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/Popular pages
• Corresponding toolserver page (quick link – 500 per page; updated hourly). –Whitehorse1 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact-check request for Robert Holmes

Any chance of an editor with the correct sources to hand checking some of the unreferenced statements at Robert Holmes? Thanks if so. --Cedders 09:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate templates

Just noticed two duplicate templates: Template:Doctor Who Auton Stories and Template:Auton Stories - Would tag one for deletion myself but wasn't sure which one the respective pages link to. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good spot. I redirected the latter to the former, it might be a useful redirect to have. Regards SoWhy 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TARDIS' FAR

I have nominated TARDIS for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Digging up solid ground - infoboxes in An Unearthly Child and The Edge of Destruction

At current, the infoboxes of these two articles both display two titles; the article names and one alternative title. This is insane, but unfortunatley at least one editor does not agree. This was put forward as a measure to prevent further arguments over three and a half years ago, where it was neither objected against or supported by anyone. Clearly this is hugely out of date. The "Beginnings" DVD uses the article name titles, as do pretty much everywhere at the present day as far as I'm aware. And even if they didn't, I'd be against this measure anyway. The infobox should have one title, and that title should be the article's name. It's as simple as that. U-Mos (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Check Doctor Who Magazine for a start - they still use 100,000 BC and Inside the Spaceship. The arrangement of listing both at the top of the infobox is taken from other articles where there is a naming dispute and was agreed on (there is support clear in the discussion at the time and no real objection raised then or until now) after the DVD set came out so I don't see anything that's really changed since then beyond one individual user deciding to alter things. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't vouch for An Unearthly Child, but The Edge of Destruction has happily had only one title in its infobox for a long time until you changed it in Spetember. There was no support at the time; the infobox suggestion was not commented on by anybody. The titles have been discussed and chosen for the article, so why should an alternative title be given equal footing in the infobox and nowhere else? Whatever these "other articles" are, this is a case of WP:OSE. And even if it were the case that there was a proper agreement for this specific part of the matter, I would contest that now anyway. There's the DVD, there's the BBC's classic episode guide; both more official (as it were) than DWM. This really is a no-brainer. U-Mos (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've waited before replying as for some reason online discussions on this subject matter tend to get out of all proportion. I don't think your using inflamatory language like "insane" and "no brainer" is particularly helpful or constructive here.

Reinterpreting what was discussed three and a half years ago strikes me as redundant. Certainly at the time that is what was agreed - and it wasn't just "to prevent further arguments", it was part of seeking a general broad consensus including where the article was located. (And it follows precedent of other articles handling multiple titles. Precedent for consistency of practice on the encyclopedia is good reasoning, just saying "WP:OSE" is not.) The situation on the first story article has been thus for over three years now with no objection raised at all. If you want to seek a change in consensus then sure go ahead, but trying to change things on a reinterpretation of long past discussions you weren't contributing to at the time

Contrary to your statement, the third story did list both titles when moved - see the relevant edit. It was only in early 2008 that one of the titles was removed without discussion or a reason given. (The same user made the same edit on the first story but that was reverted.) I can't recall why this one was overlooked though as it was not flagged it may have been missed.

There is no hierarchy of "officialness" between DWM, 2Entertain and the BBC website - see this link for the position on that one - which is one of the reasons why this one has never really settled. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Our guidelines regarding (article) titles dictate we use the most common names, and outline any alternatives in the article text (not the infobox). — Edokter • Talk • 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Which guideline are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. — Edokter • Talk • 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That page says nothing about infoboxes. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes follow the same naming conventions. — Edokter • Talk • 18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

a) Is there any need to have alternate titles in the boxes?, b) why is it that fans only seem to argue about the first three - why not have all the alternate titles for the other ones too. It's just being difficult not to accept the official BBC websites titles that are now also on the official DVD releases just because of some ancient working title that got ditched over 30 years ago. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. U-Mos (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to have multiple titles in the infobox. The alternate titles can be adequately presented in the lead. I wouldn't be surprised if there are exceptions somewhere, but it seems highly unusual to have multiple titles in the infobox - even for articles where there are multiple widely used or controversial names - e.g., Cougar. And I don't see any great need to make an exception for this circumstance. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an article on this. I've not read it, but it is there. –Whitehorse1 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

David Tennant last appearance

Listening to David Tennant he notes that his last bit of filming work on Doctor Who wasn't for the show itself but for the SJA. I'd add it to a couple of relevant articles but how do we cite Radio? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Cite audio}} seems appropriate. — Edokter • Talk • 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Move request

Hi, just informing Wikipedians involved with this project that I have placed a move request on Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who, to have it moved to "List of fictional creatures and aliens in Doctor Who". If any editors want to leave comments, the request can be found here. Thanks, 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial releases for new series episodes

Is it possible to have on each new series episode article commercial release section like with the classic series story episodes? Just deatails about DVD releases cause it seems only fair. --VitasV (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links

The BBC are officially broadcasting (if that's the correct term) some Who stories on Youtube here. Is it worth linking to in the stories' articles themselves, perhaps as an external link, or as part of the broadcast sections? Alastairward (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Great find! And no copyright infringement to boot. These should be linked in the External links section (as it's not so much a broadcast, but more of a video) of the episodes. — Edokter • Talk • 01:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the appropriate YouTube links to the external links of the articles concerned. If anyone fancies changing the wording, I don't mind. Alastairward (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that all the classic series clips are Robert Holmes stories. Are his stories the only ones they could get the clearance for? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The next Doctor is in the specials - not series 4

Thought I'd do a one size fits all post on this page rather than try arguing on different pages. I refer to my recent changes of Doctor Who (series 4). Template:Doctor Who (series 4) and Template:Doctor Who (2009 specials) which I changed to reflect that fact that that The Next Doctor is not part of series 4. One revert (here) asked for a source - the source as stated in the edits themselves is the DVD releases - Doctor Who magazne 415 announced that The Next Doctor is being released along with the complete specials DVD coupled with the fact that it is not on the series 4 DVD. The others were slightly siller - claiming that we follow production cycles. Do you really? Production block does not imply seasons. The episode has a 4 as the production code - so what? In the early years of Doctor Who productgion was all over the place. Planet of Giants and Dalek invasion of Earth (season 2) were recorded as part of the first block with season 1 but held over to start the new season. This type of thing was also done with Galaxy 4 (season ) The Smugglers (season 4) Tomb of the Cybermen (season 5) and The Dominators (season 6) - anyone want to claim that those should be part of the preceding season where they were recorded? No - good. So you see that production block does not equal season. The Next Doctor is in the DVD for the specials, not series 4 - so should be counted with the specials here and not series 4. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

So the next doctor is on the complete specials dvd as the bbc shop points out in its advertisement however I don't think thats anything to go by. But it also has a series 4 production code and in Davies' book "The Writers Tale" he describes it as the Fourteenth episode of Series Four. So there's kind of evidence both ways. However I'm not going to take a side as I'm new and don't know how things roll around here yet Therealluke (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should categorize "The Next Doctor" as a 2009 special, but for a slightly different reason. You are correct that it is in the Specials DVD, and I think the makeup of the DVD reflects the producers' intent: that "The Next Doctor" was part of the handover specials. The reason it was produced as part of season 4, I think, was to have a finished product ready for Christmas 2009, before Tennant went to do Hamlet (the remaining specials all have 4.n codes as well). It's a matter of pragmatism, really: the Doctor Who production process, especially Russell T Davies, is infamous for running very late, to the point that several episodes were being "run up Oxford Street" literally hours before the BBC required them to be deposited ("Planet of the Dead" wasn't completed until 48 hours before transmission, for example). However, I must disagree with your argument about the classic series: the new series has a more rigid production process and continuity, runs for 14 weeks on BBC rather than the 42 of the first few series, and is about half as long per season as the first few series. It's comparing apples and oranges. Sceptre 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Join the Project

May I join, I added my name to the member list if thats ok Therealluke (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, welcome aboard. Since you are a new editor, please make sure you read our introduction to Misplaced Pages and the project's guidelines to make sure your edits are not undid. Regards SoWhy 13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for "The End of Time" episodes?

Please see my request for comments at Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who)#Separate episode articles. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying hello and some questions

Hi everyone I have just joined the project.

I've just found a new article that someone has created about Adelaide Brooke from the latest Dr Who episode. What sort of importance should be put on it?

Also on the Tenth Doctor page it lists Wilfred Mott as a Companion?

Thanks for listening. Tsange 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wilf is listed as a companion because he's been announced as the Companion of The End of Time 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CFD

and Category:Doctor Who serials set outside England Tim! (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Adventures villains

The villains section of Sarah Jane Adventures is hopelessly out of date as it does not feature villains such as Erasmus Darkening or the Blathereen.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to next episode/series

Input wanted on Talk:The End of Time#Link to series 5?, wether the paramter in the infobox used to link to the next episode should link to List of Doctor Who serials#Series 5 instead. — Edokter • Talk • 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging new series non-finale two-parters

With the merge of River Song into Silence in the Library, I'm wondering if it make sense to consider merging two-part episodes from the new series which basically are simply extended stories clearly from the narrative. This would only be the case of mid-series shows and likely would not apply to the finale episodes (eg Stolen Earth/Journey's End) which generally have a lot more hype and reception around them, or in the case of "Sound of Drums"/"Last of the Time Lords" where there is a decidedly different narrative between the two parts.

This would do several things:

• Plot would be simpler - no need to "pause" for the conclusion or reintroduce concepts
• In these cases, production information would likely be the same for both episodes (same settings/actors/writers/etc.) and would not duplicate it between the two articles.
• Reception would likely have to cover both articles, but as I've seen, the mid-season shows don't seem to draw the same attention as premiere and finale episodes (eg if they all could be written as deep as Journey's End was, then no, I'd be against this, but that doesn't seem to be the case).

These would strictly apply to the episodes that have a common number (eg "Long Game" and "Bad Wolf" are not, together, a two-part episode despite the common setting), and again, not including the finale episodes. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these two-parters have different titles; that is the reasom they are seperate. And most of these do have different production- and cast information. I would have to oppose merging. — Edokter • Talk • 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose First of all, there is no reason to treat mid-season two-parters any different than end-of-season multi-part episodes. Either all of them or none of them. Then, all those episodes received coverage individually, have had different reviews and as Edokter points out, mostly the cast is not the same. It would be chaotic to try and merge two articles with different names (how to name the article?), different content and different coverage and still have them structured enough to actually emphasize that they are different episodes. They were broadcasted and produced as individual episodes who happen to share a story but there is no reason to treat them differently just because of that. Reliable sources don't, so neither should we. Regards SoWhy 15:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – way too much hassle, way too much controversy, and completely un-necessary (as SoWhy says, why should they be treated differently to finale episodes?)... ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to Outpost Gallifrey site

Nearly every page on a classic series story still includes a link to the defunct Outpost Gallifrey site, usually under the 'Reviews' section. Clicking on them leads to an error message. Could someone please remove them? I've taken some out but dont have the time to remove all 150+.

Incidentally, isn't it also about time we started including links to Amazon's DVD reviews where these exist? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)