Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Flag in infobox

All TV show articles have flags in their infoboxes. I don't see why this one should'nt! WP:Flag in not totally clear on flags in infoboxes. Thanks TheProf - T / C 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television specifically shows an example flag in its specification. In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one, I suggest we go with the flow and keep it. If the argument prevails the other way, of course, those proposing it would be free to update that template & go round every single television programme removing the flags. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one how about policy ? Wikipedia:Flags#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate, clear . Now just because other articles have it doesn't mean this article should be wrong . What does having a flag here add and no all TV shows/movies have them ,they are being removed slowly see South Park Gnevin (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is not clear. And the fact that Template:Infobox Television has one in its example is a good reason to keep it! As for the South Park article. In the infobox, [[United States]] should be changed to {{USA}}! I would do it right now, however, i feel it may lead to an edit war. Which i don't want to happen on any article! TheProf - T / C 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When policy is unclear, as it is here, consensus should prevail, and I propose we give sufficient time for a consensus to develop. This is, remember, a featured article, and it became one with the flag IIRC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and its logical corollary are never good reasons for making decisions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is clear , Don't decorate!. I've removed the flag in Template:Infobox Television it was wrong . Just because other articles have flags doesn't mean they are correct . Please discuss the merits of the flag as applies here Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's still in the template. How about you fight it out on the template's talk page and come back when you've got a leg to stand on? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a little unfair. The policy is unclear as to what constitues decoration and what does not. However, from a purely practical point of view, it's arguably more constructive to challenge the policy where it is stated than to go round the entire encyclopedia applying a personal interpretation. I found that out when I practised law. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't decorate" is highly interpretive language, and its explanation is vague and badly phrased to the point of being almost useless in the original policy. Moreover the presence of the flag in the template would seem to both contradict one user's interpretation (operative word) that the flag is decoration and give considerable support to the majority position that the flag is appropriate. I would agree with the users who contend the policy should be challenged in its own context rather than in any given application. Moreover I would further the argument of the majority that the presence of the flag on the template constitutes use within WP:Flag guidelines. Your interpretation of the policy is that the flag is decoration. The majority interpretation is that it is not. Consensus is well established, and around these parts, majority rules. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Don't decorate" is rather easy to interpret. For example, what does the flag supply that the words "United Kingdom" doesn't? Pretty much everyone who reads WP can read whereas there is no guarantee that they know the flags of the world. To add a flag and a country name is superfluous and unnecessary. This is much more a nationalism thing than encyclopaedic and should therefore be stamped out. --WebHamster 04:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Before this gets too heated, a few points. One, Wikipedia doesn't operate by the idea of "majority rules", which is quite different from consensus. Second, WP:FLAG isn't a policy; it began as an essay and has since become a guideline under the Manual of Style. (To quote, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.") Third, inclusion in the template does not reflect consensus about the use of flags. It is just a line of code in the template, and as very few editors actually get involved in the design of templates it cannot really be taken as consensus for anything. (There was a discussion on the template talk page about the use of flags back in January. Opinions were split, and no consensus appears to have developed.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all very borderline personal and incivil . I've yet too hear what the flag adds to the article.I've yet to told what this adds here .Why do we need the flag here? '

Don't decorate and it's important points here Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustrationGnevin (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion here, on the template discussion page. Until consensus one way or the other is reached, current guidelines should be kept to, and the guidelines for this template state that flag icons should be used. _TalkIslander 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Source needed

User:Avandriwala has added - Russel T. Davies has said that it's most likely that there will be a series every two years with a gap of three specials every other year. - into the article. I'd like to request a source please. Thanks TheProf - T / C 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not his decision any more. Disregard it. Digifiend (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be shortened?

It's getting a bit long. Perhaps some sections should be turned into independant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.226.83 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I at least think the new series of Doctor Who should be separated from the old series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.169.64 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is missing lots of material

We need material on the philosophy and nature of the Time Lords. We need information on The Doctor's home world Gallifrey. We need attention to the fact The doctor is a pacifist and never resorts to violence, (which is rare in TV Sci Fi). We need a FULL episode list. And we need a catalogue for all the various species encountered by the doctor. A lot of work needs done here folks.--Redblossom (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See the bottom of the article; you'll see a navigation box linking all important articles relating to Doctor Who. — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, terrible eyesight!! Found the links. Thanks.--Redblossom (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for Featured Article Review?

According to the Article's Milestone section there has not been a WP:FAR since the article was granted Featured Article status four years ago. Considering the new shows and in universe information produced, the subsequent increased media exposure due to new shows, and some of the objections raised in the Discussion Page above, I would ask if anyone else thinks its time for a formal review of the article. In all honestly, I think the simple amount of time from when it was first rated should be a superseding factor for a third party review. If there are no strong objections, I will suggest this article for FAR in a weeks time. Zidel333 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An FAR would probably be a good idea in the near future, but may I suggest that you hold off for a couple months, until after the current series has finished airing in the UK? The editors who work on Doctor Who-related articles are focused on the articles for new episodes right now (and have already succeeded in getting the first episode of this season, Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), to FA status). It would be a shame if the energies which have been so successful in keeping new episode articles to the highest quality were to be split by having an FAR at the same time. If we could wait on an FAR until around July, then the editors could give the FAR the full attention it would deserve. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been over a week, and I agree with you Josiah Rowe. Is mid July, say July 15th OK for you? Zidel333 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and it's highly civil of you to set a planned date for a FAR. Many featured article reviewers are not so considerate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad that we came to an agreement so easily. And I must say that I look forward to the review in July. :) Zidel333 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good longterm goal for those of us editing the article, allowing us to focus on the episode articles in the meantime. As it stands, 4 years between FA status and a FAR is a very long time per Wikipedia standards, especially for a topic under which so much has happened (two new Doctors, half a dozen new companions, two spinoffs, etc.) I wonder if there should be a general rule for FACing articles every N years? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Serials vs Episodes

I guess I have two points here. First off, why are both linked? Second, why do both even exist? They seem to exist more due to the fact that "serials" and "episodes" are used to mean the same thing on different sides of the ocean. Frankly, the list of serials looks much better done. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean List of titled Doctor Who episodes? It exists because that list containt all episode title being part of a serial, which are not listed in List of Doctor Who serials. — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. For the first three years Doctor Who was on the air, each episode had an individual title, but nearly all episodes were part of longer serials of between 3 and 12 episodes. In 1966, the producers stopped giving each episode an individual title and started calling them "episode 1" or "part 3" (it changed over the years). That was the standard until Doctor Who was cancelled in 1989. When the series was brought back in 2005, the producers returned to giving each episode an individual title, in part because most stories consisted of only one episode. Two-part stories (and, last year, one three-part story) were still part of the mix, but now they no longer have an overall title. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edit

I'm reverting this previous edit due to it's nonsensical nature. Replacing a simple space with   and yet taking out — for "-"? Is your mind not made up on the argument of simple text or wiki code? I would go back in and replace the — in the name of simplicity, and at some point I actually will. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Roy Spencer

Please could anyone with information help to improve the new article Roy Spencer (actor) - he appeared in 8 episodes. Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Added the two Doctor Who stories he appeared in. -TonyW (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Award Winning

It's in pretty bad Wiki-taste to have an opening sentence read "award-winning." The Film Style Guidelines pretty specifically advise against it, and WP:PEACOCK also comes into mind, but I'm not aware of any Television Style Guidelines that would specifically apply to this. I also know there are some avid, OWNy editors that watch this page, so I figured I'd state my case here before editing, or just let someone else remove it, in an effort to avoid an edit war. There's never a reason to call something 'award-winning.' Just state the awards and significance, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Darbyshire composer

Delia Derbyshire was not the composer of the Who theme. She arranged and performed it. Grainer was happy to share composition credit with her, but wasn't allowed to (she was staff). We wouldn't credit Murray Gold with composing it for his orchestral version. The debt should be acknoweldged, but not by pretending she wrote it. She didn't. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Grainer was happy to share composition credit with her" - well, there's your answer. It's not a matter of whether she was officially credited at the time... the fact is that the credited composer clearly stated that she deserved part of the credit for the composition due to her work. The fact that a work-for-hire policy at the time forbade her from receiving on-screen credit (other than being credit as part of the Radiophonic Workshop entity) doesn't change the verifiable fact that she was actually a composer of the theme. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not even an argument and is contrary to the facts. Grainer could have felt his dog deserved a co-composition credit and been foiled by the Not A Human Being rule. If he wanted to share credit with his arranger fine, he didn't pass away for two decades following the premiere and the theme was in constant reissue on vinyl. He didn't. It is not verifiable that she was a co-composer; Grainer is known to have composed it on his piano and brought in a tape of his playing and a score with notations such as "bubbles". If you know in contrary to what witnesses say, and can prove this belief that she was a secret composer of the piece, can you please describe the passages she was soley/partly/not responsible for?MartinSFSA (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the composition is actually credited to "Ron Grainer and the BBC Radiophonic Workshop". The credit to BBCRW exists because of BBC's policy against crediting its own members (and thus allowing them to profit from royalties). There are a thousand sources that verify historical accounts of the events that took place between Grainer's original score and the final piece of music (Grainer: "Did I write that?") which can serve as sources for the fact that she played the crucial role of co-composer and arranger, which is what warrants the credit to BBCRW, and so, I stand by my assertion that she should be credited by name. As for the bit about the dog, well, that's just a ridiculous analogy. This is not solely about what Grainer "wanted." --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand ever more firmly by the dog (no I don't; don't know he had one), but I've both given away authorial credit and published on this subject (the answer was no).MartinSFSA (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence of her authorship is that she (her estate) is apparently collecting royalties on the composition through her publishing agreement via "UNIVERSAL MUSIC-MGB SONGS". A quick ASCAP search will reveal her credited as writer on several entries of "Doctor Who Signature Theme" etc. Apparently at some point, Grainer did share authorship after all. In summary:

• Grainer himself has stated that she should have originally been jointly credited with him as a composer. [record of this history here]
• In several sources, the composer is credited to "Ron Grainer and the BBC Radiophonic Workshop". This is clearly in reference to Derbyshire's contribution, albeit anonymously. If the composition were entirely Grainer's, there would be no need to credit the performer or producer in this manner.
• Derbyshire is listed via ASCAP as a credited writer.

--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellant piece of research (although I'm not finding it here, and of a different order to the in house credit and Grainer's quote. However, it's still at variant with my source which was Tristram Cary. He was quite firm on who the composer was, although he felt she had put in most of the effort, as a fellow electronics person. This debate I liken to the James Bond theme, which has had the same claims of uncredited composition. I'm impressed enough that I think you should add this to the Doctor Who Theme entry! MartinSFSA (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The listings for Derbyshire are here... but, oddly, there are several variations that not only don't list Ron Grainer as a co-writer (only Derbyshire), but one actually includes Patrick Kingsland as a co-writer on something called "DOCTOR WHO NEW SIGNATURE TUNE RECORD". Also, there are likewise many listings that show Grainer as the sole writer of different, but similarly titled compositions such as "Opening Dr Who" as shown here. At the risk of challenging my own research, this makes me question this a bit.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Score! I was willing to cede the point if you could demonstrate she collected royalties on any version she hadn't performed or arranged as it would make the difference academic but this is an instant article.MartinSFSA (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're saying (lots of contradicting negatives there... you lost me). But, as far as I can see, she is not credited by name as the performer or arranger - only as "writer" - but in all of the entires, the BBC Radiophonic Workshop is credited as the performer - of which she was a part. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, another source for Grainer's attempts at giving her co-composer credit at the time is here --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I take Tristram Cary's account as paramount is his proximity to the events, his knowledge as a contemporaneous working electronic composer and his description of the physical evidence. However, if you have proven that Derbyshire collected royalties on versions of the theme which do not draw upon her performance or arrangement then this is tacit acknowledgement of her identification as composer--particularly as it dates back to Grainer's own life. Thanks for the cross note in the theme entry.MartinSFSA (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare this to the Adagio in G minor entry; it deserves research. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

episode 4.12 of the latest season

Why hasn't that episode been named yet? Isn't it a little odd for that episode to not have a name, yet the season finale does? dposse (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only the BBC knows... — Edokter • Talk • 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It was deemed "too spoilery", which, now that the title has been released, would seem to have been pretty transparently the marketing ploy that most people probably suspected in the first place. Sure it's a bit spoilery once we've expressly been told that it's a big spoiler, but if it had just been released with the rest of the titles on the list it wouldn't have been anymore spoilery than "Last of the Time Lords" or "Planet of the Ood". Binabik80 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking to get into the fandom

What's absolutely essential viewing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.126.195 (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just buy the box sets if you're a newbie Whovian. Digifiend (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article. For general questions, you should use the Reference desks. Someone recently asked a similar question there, and you can find the answer by following this link. Gwinva (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that existed. Digifiend (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Companions in infobox

How many should there be? People seem deternined to keep adding to it. Once we get to The Stolen Earth, will we have to have "currently Catherine Tate, Billie Piper, John Barrowman, Freema Agyeman, Elizabeth Sladen"....Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, only the main companion should be listed. But I wouldn't mind if the "Currently..." part was removed alltogether. — Edokter • Talk • 14:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. "Currently" makes it look like a blog or news article, and changes from week to week. It's a poor example of WP:Recentism which could well go, especially since some editors will insist on adding characters such as Rose Tyler just because she appears in an episode rather than being a fellow-traveller, which is the essence of being a Doctor's companion, the major point of which is to be a surrogate for a viewer and trigger explanations (apart from the love interest, of course). --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should put all of them on, because, after all, they are all current companions... 203.192.85.33 (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, is Dr. Watson currently Sherlock Holmes' companion? This is a perennial problem when we are writing about fiction in that we are trying to write it as if it's real when it isn't. Certainly in the television series which is being broadcast now, the Doctor may or may not have a companion or companions. But when the series ends, there is no reason on Gallifrey to use the word "current" as it's meaningless and incorrect. The WP:MOS says that fiction should be written about in the present tense, and if you think about it, trying to update a continuing narrative which we are experiencing now is futile because all the tenses will get mixed up. We should be writing it as if it were a Shakespeare play, done and dusted, rather than an unfolding news story. And the most sensible reason I can think of for doing it that way, which is why we have WP:MOS#FICT, is that once it's written it doesn't need to alter to reflect its current status. Unless, of course, you buy a newspaper and expect it to change at midnight to have a new headline; if that happened, nobody need ever buy more than one newspaper. Actually, not a bad idea for some newspapers. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should maybe just stick to Rose, Donna & Martha then, because they are the 'current' recognised companions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.85.33 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs changed

David Tennant runs from 2005-2008. I would change it myself, but it appears to have been locked? 88.104.41.63 (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been locked to prevent you changing it. Do you have a source for Tennant leaving this year? MartinSFSA (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The last episode is quite proving that fact (season 4 episode 12)77.109.113.70 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it? It shows a regeneration starting, but we don't know what happens next. Making assumptions is original research and it's customary consensus on this article and related ones to wait for a reliable source. That means either an announcement from the BBC or the following episode itself. --Rodhullandemu 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, i was too excited watching the show to be objective, I'll wait for confirmation then.77.109.113.70 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The current state is surely unknown, and should be stated as such.78.151.158.217 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We are writing about fiction, not real life, so there really is no concept of currency. All we're saying in the infobox is which actor plays The Doctor, and I wouldn't object if it wasn't there at all. There is very little point saying that anything is unknown; that's the sort of language used in blogs and fansites, which this is not. You might just as well say "it is not known when the Eiffel Tower will fall down", and that would convey just as much information, i.e. zero. --Rodhullandemu 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

I've tweaked the references to make it plain that the BBC has confirmed Tennant for the 2009 specials. He has also confirmed this himself in response to rumors (apparently started by Catherine Tate in an interview on BBC2) that Season 4 would be his last. --Jenny 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is definite that David Tennant is going to stay on at least until 2009, and here is the evidence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2007/09/03/48471 (please add .shmtl on the end, it wouldn't let me upload it with .shmtl on the end). Anyway, if he was going to leave before 2010, they would have got a new doctor to do an entire series in 2009, but if Tennant can only manage 3 special eps, then he must want to stay on. 203.192.85.33 (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the last paragraph under "Incidental Music"-- In addition to the 1970s through 200s, music from the 1940's appears in "the doctor dances". Specifically two Glen Miller songs -- In The Mood and Moonlight Serenade appear. Rmahn (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC) +