Wikipedia

Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 29

< Talk:Doctor Who
Latest comment: 6 years ago by ZarhanFastfire in topic Proper Image for Infobox
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31

Request for comments on Doctor Who News as a reliable source

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that the website is reliable.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, Doctor Who News reported that the title of the upcoming 2017 Christmas Special of Doctor Who was "The Doctors". (Source: the panel will give fans an exclusive sneak peek of The Doctors – the final special starring Peter Capaldi as the Doctor.) A discussion was started at the given link as to whether this could be considered reliable and official. Earlier today, an official announcement was given at the 2017 San-Diego Comic Con that the title would be "Twice Upon a Time". (Source: The title for this year's Doctor Who Christmas special has been revealed as Twice Upon a Time.)
The former of the pinged editors above stated in the linked discussion that Doctor Who News is a fan website and DWN isn't official or reliable and probably just created their own working title for it. I supported the use of the website as a reliable source, stating Doctor Who News has always been considered as a reliable source for Wikipedia when it comes to Doctor Who media; irrelevant if it is "official" or not.
The reason for the question posed in this RFC is that Doctor Who News is currently used to support the viewer ratings for every aired episode of the series. This can be seen at the List of Doctor Who serials article, where in the header cell containing "UK viewers (millions)" in every season table, this page is used. I stated this in the previous discussion: it's being used as a source for the ratings and AIs of all 839 episodes. This can also be seen at individual episode articles; for example, at The Pilot (Doctor Who) § Broadcast and reception. (Source)
As can be seen at Draft:Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who), after the official title was announced, I added the information that the episode's title had previously been reported as "The Doctors" back into the article as production information (diff), which the other editor then removed with the same reasoning as they gave in the previous discussion. (diff).
There does not seem to have been any other editor who has raised concern on whether the website can be used as a reliable source. So, can Doctor Who News be used as a reliable source? Based on my position in this, I clearly Support that it can. -- AlexTW 08:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel there are kind of two things going on here. Yes, Doctor Who News appears to be a reliable source - they appear to do their due diligence and I would not call them WP:QUESTIONABLE. Does every reliable source always get it right? Nope. Maybe they misunderstood that fans will get an "exclusive sneak peak of the Doctors" (meaning the both of them) and thought it to be the title. Does one source for a supposed previous title where there are no other sources need to be included in the article? - probably not and I feel may fall a little into WP:UNDUE. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There may be two things going on here, but they are related; one affects the other. The sentence from the quote would not make sense if what was meant was "the Doctors" - the panel will give fans an exclusive sneak peek of the Doctors – the final special starring Peter Capaldi as the Doctor? The section starting with "the final special" is clearly indicating that they were talking about the episode, not the characters. It is also not the only source that named the special as "The Doctors"; see the sources provided in the previous discussion. However, we have an editor saying that Doctor Who News is nothing but a fan site and due to its unofficial status, it should not be used as a source at all; I quote: If Wikipedia has always considered it a reliable source, it needs to stop. So what we need is confirmation on whether the site can or cannot be used as a reliable source. -- AlexTW 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That full sentence is from Doctor Who News - I was a speculating maybe they misinterpreted their original source somehow - which would seem true as DWN's wording is similar these official BBC America postings which don't include a title of the xmas episode [1] [2]. However I think DWN can be generally considered a reliable source "Doctor Who News is a part of News in Time and Space Ltd." [3] [4] - it's not a fan site. Dresken (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not they've been reliable in the past, they're the only source that gave it the name The Doctors, and this was done in passing. There's no sources past this one to reference when calling The Doctors a working title in Twice Upon A Time's article, and considering that the source IS a fansite, by definition, why would we include that The Doctors is a working title in the article, when even the fansite mentioning it never considered it as such? AlexTheWhovian was under the impression that Doctor Who News is a reliable source, and so that The Doctors was the title for the episode, regardless of the fact that there was no evidence beyond this, and so I'm under the impression that the edit to include this as a working title in the episode's page was due to the aforementioned discussion we had on the topic. Microbat98 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A correction: I am not under the impression it's reliable, I know that it's reliable. Cheers. And I linked another source reporting the title was "The Doctors", but you seem to be focusing only on the points that can support your own argument in the face of other editors. Still not a fansite, though - another uninvolved editor just proved that. I think you need to understand that now. You think I'm including it because of our previous discussion? 1) Keep disputes about content to their respective discussion, not an unrelated one, and 2) in said other discussion, I just told you that we've always included previous and reported titles. Are you trying to have the same discussion in two places? -- AlexTW 15:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
You never posted another source that used the title. Give me an official source that ever used it as a title and I'll forfeit. It is a fansite, posting news found through official sites. Other editors have argued whether it's reliable, but whether or not it's a fansite isn't even in dispute. Finally, it was another discussion on the same topic, which is why I'm beginning to believe that your adamance that your edit should be kept is due to a vendetta, if anything. Microbat98 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect, yet again. Go back to the discussion, and you'll see it. But regardless of any link that I provide you, you will always declare it as unreliable, despite having no proof, no policy, no guideline and not even an essay that supports your claims of unreliability. I could reinstate the content that you removed with the other source that I provided, but you would undoubtedly attempt to gain the final "victory" by reverting again. Now. Back to the topic on whether Doctor Who News is reliable or not, shall we? Please, provide these policies and guidelines that support your views. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 15:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I will forfeit if you give a link to an official source that used the term The Doctors. Point is, you havent got one. This has nothingnto do with whether or not the fansite is reliable or not, as if they wrote an article with incorrect information, we shouldn't include. No other sources use the title. You wouldn't write that gravity doesn't exist if Doctor Who News declared as such. They're one source, and not an official source, that states something that many inside sources on Gallifrey Base were disputing, that has no sources behind it, and that everyone here has claimed shouldn't be used in the article. Your the one trying to gain a final victory. People here are all on the side that this information was most likely incorrect and we need more sources first. I agree that Doctor Who News is reliable, but that doesn't make them right about everything and doesn't mean we should treat their word as gospel against all other words. Microbat98 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
... Come again? What? Doctor Who News isn't a reliable site because it's a fansite, but we should go by what the "inside sources" on Gallifrey Base is saying? There goes any sort of valid argument, out the window. Especially now that you're contradicting yourself as to the reliability only to support your argument. -- AlexTW 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
He has agreed that DWN is generally reliable - which is the point of this RFC. But I think the other point Microbat98 is making is that Doctor Who News made a claim to a title that just has no real backing once it is looked further into. He's not using Gallifrey Base as a source, but as supporting corroboration in amongst several reasons that the other title was probably a mistake DWN made this time around - that mistake seems fairly apparent to me as well looking at a few different things that I've provided. Just because GB wouldn't be used as a source in an article doesn't exclude all the other supporting evidence here. Dresken (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with all of this. I do not consider Gallifrey Base a source, I was using it to help my point. I do agree that DWN was reliable, but considering that it's the only place that used the term The Doctors, it could have well been a mistake. Microbat98 (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
And yet you talk of "inside sources" from Gallifrey Base as if they have any standing here. Even to help a point. They do not. They have no relevance here. Not the only place that used it. Hey, check the other talk page, I even bolded it for you. -- AlexTW 14:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Your argument clearly holds no ground when you ignore half of the conversation and pick and choose what to argue with. "But I think the other point Microbat98 is making is that Doctor Who News made a claim to a title that just has no real backing once it is looked further into. He's not using Gallifrey Base as a source, but as supporting corroboration in amongst several reasons that the other title was probably a mistake DWN made this time around - that mistake seems fairly apparent to me as well looking at a few different things that I've provided. Just because GB wouldn't be used as a source in an article doesn't exclude all the other supporting evidence here." Microbat98 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I apologise if I'm being simplistic, but how do we know that the viewer numbers/ratings figures published by DWN can be relied upon? Even if verification was conducted when it first started being used as a source, it doesn't mean it's still reliable. Where does it get its figures, and what methodology does it employ to collect and collate them? Wouldn't it be better if an 'official' primary source such as the BBC was used for this data, rather than a fan site? Further, even if it has proven to be a reliable source for a particular set of 'Who-related' information, it seems a bit of a leap to expand faith in its accurate reporting to cover all 'Who-related' information. Fan sites are generally deprecated as reliable sources on Wikipedia (I would emphasise 'generally' ; I'm not trying to rule anything out here). So, for the numbers/rating data, wouldn't we be better off trying to find a better source than a fan site? Sorry if I'm drifting off-topic, but at the moment a lot of emphasis regarding DWN's suitability as a reliable source seems to hinging on the numbers/ratings issue. Sprite96 (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. It seems to rather be in contrast with the one directly above yours - can you point out to me how Doctor Who News can be classified as a "fan site", after viewing the links given by Dresken? Cheers. -- AlexTW 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I suppose people are putting different meanings on the term "fansite" - I take it to mean "user generated content". Under this definition, I would argue that a "fansite" is not the appearance of Doctor Who News and it meets the criteria set out in WP:RS. Especially in that it demonstrates that it is professional by being a registered business. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I'm sort of a neutral-ish third party in this, and was more interested in getting the issue resolved than taking one particular position or the other. I see a couple problems arising with this RfC:

  • There are two questions at issue here that make it difficult to respond to: a) whether DWN is a reliable source in general and; b) whether DWN is reliable for the purposes of determining whether the Christmas episode originally had another title. That the two are somewhat interwoven and working at the same time within this RfC makes it it difficult to respond to. Moreover, the related issue of whether DWN is a fan site that has now been raised (I always thought it was; that seems a given to me) has muddied the RfC further.
  • The question of the reliability of DWN is appropriately situated here, but the issue of the reliability of the title is not. It should be discussed on the talk page of the draft article.
  • Alex and Microbat continue to push content/revert, and then snipe at each other within this RfC, which makes it a hostile discussion. Until they stop having to be right and start thinking of the best interest of the article, that situation won't improve. I'd suggest the two refrain from interacting on this RfC, and take any discussion either to the draft article about the Christmas episode or their talk pages, and let this discussion progress in peace, or it's never going to get anywhere. Moreover, I'd encourage both to limit their comments to other editors to a minimum.

Jaysus; we've got the correct title. How important is the minutia about the supposed first one, really? Given he tidal wave of inaccurate information that preceded the announcement of the 13th Doctor, as well as the "if it's on the internet it must be true" system of belief that accompanies events like the upcoming episode and transition to a new production team (see: Marshall, Kris), along with the BBC America tweet I noted above, it seems reasonable that an error was made in assuming "The Doctors" was an original title. No one from the production has ever verified that it was. Can we please just let this go now, then step back, rewrite the RfC, and consider the overall reliability of DWN without muddying the discussion with this little sparring match? ----Dr.Margi ✉ 15:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Bondegezou (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

Rather than rewriting this RFC - I think we could just agree to close this RFC - everyone seems to be in agreement that DWN can generally be considered a reliable source. Dresken (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I neither agree nor disagree as of yet. Fair call on the 'fansite' issue, but I now think that's a blind alley. The fact that it's operators have set up a registered business doesn't automatically render it 'professional', and neither does being professional or belonging to a profession automatically confer reliability. That's a poor test; God knows I've dealt with enough limited companies that are neither professional or reliable. Surely the only meaningful test is whether DWN has consistently proven itself to provide accurate information? Maybe it has, maybe not. How do we go about verfying that? I would also like to ask again why DWN, which itself states that its unofficial and solicits contributions from volunteers, is the Wikipedia source of choice for Doctor Who viewer numbers and ratings, and not an official source? Yes, the source doesn't have to be 'official', but why not use DWN's source instead of going through a middle-man? Go where they go for that information and much of this discussion might be rendered moot. Sprite96 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course professionalism is not "the" test, but it is a factor to consider. I don't think one mistake means we have to start systematically recheck everywhere DWN has ever been used - of course you (or others) are welcome to if you like. I've been ignoring the "unofficial" part until now. Wikipedia also only talks about primary, secondary and tertiary sources - "official" is not a requirement of sources. Also I think all news reporting is basically "unofficial" by definition - so it feels like a moot point whether something is or isn't. "solicits contributions from volunteers" - are you referring to "looking for reliable volunteers to join our award winning news team"[5]? It's not an open free-for-all, it looks like they vet their staff before allowing them to contribute (which again speaks to their professionalism). A volunteer organisation does not immediately mean that it is the same as user generated content (like IMdB). If you think you have a better source for viewer numbers and ratings, please by all means raise it. However I think DWN is an adequate, reliable, secondary source for viewership information - which is the criteria it needs to meet. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that DWN shouldn't be discounted as a reliable source because of one mistake regarding an episode name. It's use as the source for viewer numbers and ratings in Doctor Who articles has been raised in this RFC. Acceptance that those figures are correct, without verification, seems to be based upon the premise that DWN is generally reliable. I'm not saying it isn't, but I am still struggling to find strong evidence being presented in this discussion that it is. Anyway, given Wikipedia's millions of registered users, and that only a handful of them that have decided to contribute to this RFC, I would say that a consensus has definitely been established that the majority of the community doesn't think it matters one way or the other. I can live with that, so I agree with Dresken that this RFC should now be closed. Sprite96 (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Professionalism isn't a precise measure, so there is really no way to consider it. The material point is: can we rely on the information we get from DWN? Simply put, yes. This error is an aberration born of confusion coming from the BBC or BBC America or some such thing. They do source their content, sometimes I think more stringently than the mainstream media, which makes errors routinely as it rushes to press. The notion that only reliable source is an "official" one is absurd. WP editors massively overuse and mis-use the notion of officially anyway, not to mention the need to arrive upon a mutually satisfactory definition of official. Who needs it? The standard here is to defer to secondary sources, such as DWN. I'm foursquare in favor of continuing to treat DWN as reliable, to chalk up the error they made to the sheer volume of information in circulation recently, and to close this RfC. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Change original broadcast channel from BBC One to BBC Television

(NB: BBC1, NOT 'BBC One', did not start until 1964) The page distinguishes between BBC1 and BBC1 HD, so it should certainly distinguish between BBC Television and BBC1. NB: Your own site states this at [1] 86.13.1.160 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Television
  Not done Been discussed before and denied; please provide reliable sources. 23:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

13 actors so far not 12

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It say that twelve actors have played the Doctor but 13 actors have played the doctor including John Hurt Tennant10 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It actually says "Twelve actors have headlined the series as the Doctor." John Hurt was a guest actor - and was not headlining the series. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
actually, a lot of characters have played The Doctor on screen, a lot more than which are listed as the doctor in the topic (Half Doctors, fake doctors, people who thought they were the doctor, spoof doctors, people who have the doctor in their heads and the like). However, it does say that there have been 12 doctors who have headlined the show as the doctor. John Hurt only appeared on two episodes, and wasn't the main focus of that. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Whitaker's outfit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[6] Have at it :) --MASEM (t) 14:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"List of Doctor Who characters"

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I notice that a page like this for Doctor Who doesn't exist which surprised me since a lot of other shows have extensive ones. However there is a page called List of Doctor Who cast members which is a bit of a mess aside from the main overview table(s). There's just random incomplete tables and little to no information. Obviously there's been hundreds of actors to appear in the show and not all of them will need to be listed (perhaps all the main characters and notable side characters who've had recurring roles). This is a chance to revamp the article (possibly changing the name "cast" to "characters") or perhaps even making a new page from scratch.

I started a discussion thread a few minutes ago with some proposals so if I could kindly direct people over there to discuss it that'd be great. It's not a very high traffic page and it seems most editors have disregarded it since it appears to be an un-salvageable mess. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a List of Doctor Who villains and Companion (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your post TME. After 54 years of episodes such a list would be immense. Along with the the two articles that DQ has mentioned there are several others listed in the Template:Doctor Who. Breaking them into smaller groups has been deemed the best way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
If you read the small discussion over at List of Doctor Who cast members, they have decided to start a Draft:List of Doctor Who characters. I don't disagree that things may need to be cleaned up slightly (there are always improvements to be made). But improvements to the current few pages, rather that a reproduction of the information in a new page might be more warranted. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, we have started to create Draft:List of Doctor Who characters with the intention to replace the List of Doctor Who cast members page upon completion. That page is just a mess and the characters page will be an brief overview of all the Doctor's and companions and notable guests in one place. It's gonna take time but I think it's necessary. If anybody has any thoughts it'd be appreciated. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
We've already got The Doctor (Doctor Who) and Companion (Doctor Who). Sorry, I don't what Draft:List of Doctor Who characters adds to those? Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't suppose you've looked at the Companion (Doctor Who) page, but it's different. That has an overview of the companions in a table. On this new page, there'll be a short description/overview of each character much like List of Game of Thrones characters. As for comparisons, to The Doctor (Doctor Who), it's not like that at all. This new page will essentially be a replacement for the List of Doctor Who cast members page which will be deleted upon publication of Draft:List of Doctor Who characters. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I did look at those other pages and they seem to do a good job. We want WP:OUTUNIVERSE prose, not just tables and not just plot re-tellings.
Why not just trim List of Doctor Who cast members, removing the alphabetical sections of non-recurring people, and then rename List of Doctor Who cast members to List of Doctor Who characters? That would seem a simpler way to go about this.
I'm not certain that List of Game of Thrones characters is a good model to follow. The plot summaries under each character are unreadable, too long and too WP:INUNIVERSE. Please nothing like that! Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
That's essentially the idea. We were going to rename the page but realised it'd take a long time to build it up. I guess the information we have could be copied over. The general idea is to include casting information and reappearances etc. i.e. WP:OUTUNIVERSE like you've said. It's not intended to be a full biography for every character. But it's a massive job and will take time - so after the draft page is completed we'll figure out what to do with it. Whatever happens, List of Doctor Who cast members will have to go. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Delia Derbyshire

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Jfdouble added some content about Delia Derbyshire's contribution to the Dr Who theme, which Mezigue has now reverted. The addition cited a Guardian article that says:

"She went on to transform a written score by Ron Grainer for a new TV series, Doctor Who, into an iconic piece of electronic music.

"Due to BBC policies at the time, Grainer – unwillingly – is still officially credited as the sole writer."

That looks to me to be a sufficient RS citation in support of Jfdouble's edit. I also found this, which says:

"Derbyshire’s career landmark was, of course, her electronic rendition of Ron Grainer’s “Doctor Who” theme. “Did I really write this?”, an amazed Grainer inquired after first hearing her version of his most famous melody, with Derbyshire answering the question, “Most of it.”

"[...]

"Grainer himself stated that Derbyshire should be credited with half the royalties for co-writing the song, but this conflicted with the BBC’s policies. She was only credited as ‘special sound by BBC Radiophonic Workshop.’"

And there are further sources supporting this. I thus would support restoring Jfdouble's edit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's already mentioned in the article(s). We shouldn't give her co-composer credit until reliable sources commonly and consistently do so. DonQuixote (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm uncertain what that means in practice. I've given you two reliable sources above. There are others: it is commonly reported in modern sources. Is that not enough to support Jfdouble's edit? Bondegezou (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
It has to do with due weight. Currently, whenever sources discuss the theme they mention that it was composed by Grainer with some of them mentioning later on the above as an anecdote. We should reflect what the reliable sources are saying. If and when it changes such that reliable sources commonly and consistently mention that the theme was composed by Grainer and Derbyshire as co-composers from the start, then we should change our articles to reflect that. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that was pretty much my thinking. Mezigue (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Recent articles about the theme (and not just mentioning it in passing) usually talk about Derbyshire in my experience. I also don't see any references disputing the case for Derbyshire. WP:DUE is satisfied as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Focusing on recent articles, I found the following supporting the suggested edit:
Other articles note Derbyshire's role but don't go as far in their wording. This and this give the "Did I really write this?" quote from Grainer. The former words it as, "Rob Grainer — whose composition Derbyshire worked from to create the theme".
The latter of those and here talk of Derbyshire's "realisation" of the theme. While this article goes with "rendition". Here talks of her "interpretation". And here sticks with "arranged".
All that seems to me to warrant wording more inclusive of Derbyshire's role than the present text. Bondegezou (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Most of those sources refer to her work as realising the theme (arranger or performer) rather than co-composer. Also, articles specifically about the theme (and independent of Derbyshire) that mention her as co-composer would probably hold more weight. DonQuixote (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
No, they don't. Most of those articles clearly talk about her as more than an arranger or performer. The initial list of 12 all are stronger than that. They refer to as a co-composer and/or as someone who should have been credited as such were it not for BBC policy and/or that Grainer wanted her to be so recognised. I then listed 4 I'd found that do go with an arranger/performer line, and 2 in between. 12 > 4. If you feel there are recent articles taking a different tack that I've missed, please do share them. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The enquirer: is known to Whovians everywhere as the architect behind the arrangement of Ron Grainger's Doctor Who theme
Rhinegold: One of her first works was her 1963 realisation of Ron Grainer’s theme tune for Doctor Who
alphr: Derbyshire’s most well known work is the transformation of Ron Grainer’s score for Doctor Who
KQED: hough a man named Ron Grainer had written the score, Derbyshire so transformed it that Grainer was said to have asked her, “Did I really write this?” etc.
Although a few mention Grainer still remains the only writer, it's not directly citeable in terms of "co-composer". All that's really needed is better sources with less interpretation. It's better to have a solid basis for things like this. DonQuixote (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate all the thoughtful discussion and agree with Bondegezou that Derbyshire's contribution be made more obvious. The impetus for my original request was this article about her being awarded a posthumous honorary doctorate from Coventry University, which includes a quote that she "went on to transform a written score by Ron Grainer for the new series, Doctor Who, into an iconic piece of electronic music":

I felt that this page should also provide the appropriate recognition of her role as an uncredited composer, as supported by all the citations above (now 13:4?). I think significant weight should also be given to those that mention Grainer's support.

Can I replace my edits, "Unfortunately, even though Grainer was willing, the BBC would not allow Derbyshire to receive co-composer credit" and "Delia Derbyshire (uncredited)", since they acknowledge the uncredited nature of the situation, or something similar that you would propose, Mezigue or DonQuixote? Jfdouble (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is for simple information, and as such, IMO the first version, where it's mentioned in the article in prose, is better. Although, "unfortunately" should probably be edited out. DonQuixote (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I've boldly added it to the prose. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A source? (Of course)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I recently completed what is turning into a semi-annual clearing of the cobwebs, burning the unsourced Continuity/Outside references content from classic series episodes (made it from about The Three Doctors all the way to Survival this time without tearing any hair out). So one source I've seen cropping up a lot lately which I can't quite work out is www.shannonsullivan.com. Whoever this is, it's not the professor who has an article by that name, I'm guessing. But who are they and is there any reason to think this source is reliable for things Who? I didn't have to decide that this time around, as each time it came up the text wasn't continuity anyway, but I've seen it elsewhere too and kind of wonder, is this just a big blog devoted mainly to Who or what? I'd like to know for the future in case it's good material that might stand there or elsewhere in the article. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wowser - mammoth effort. Hopefully we can keep on top of it better this year. "shannonsullivan" - I hadn't heard of it outside of Wikipedia Doctor Who articles. Seems to be a early site of Doctor Who history - articles seem to be well sourced [7] - which is almost a novelty in todays interweb. Also claims to be the precusor to the Outpost Gallifrey. [8] Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I just don't know about the reliability of that site. They given seasons unsourced titles (presumably that's their own) and are counting the NuWho series as continuous from the original series (i.e., Season Thirty-One, etc.). Misleading to the casual reader from the start. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not completely unusual for someone to refer to the season numbers that way [9], and they were also producing this site back in 1995 before NuWho was even a twinkle in RTD's eye, so just because they have an opinion on something isn't the official designation that does not mean that everything else they do incorrect, especially since I've really only seen this site used as a source on classic series anyway. I also see the "unsourced titles" more like what could be chapter titles in a book - being small quirky interpretations of the seasons than something meant to be taken literally. If it were a book with creative title chapters, I don't think we would worry about it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one of the oldest and most well-established Doctor Who info bases on the Web. The info there comes from all over the place, including DVD extras, commentaries, published articles. It's from another era of Web design, and the presentation of the information is clearly shaped by the author's personal preferences, but I've never had reason to question the factual content. At a glance I can confirm pretty much everything on the site just from my own knowledge. And indeed you'll have trouble finding a pre-2005 Who fan on the Web who hasn't regularly referenced this site. --Aderack (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
All good to know. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Latest comment: 6 years ago55 comments18 people in discussion

Seeing how the episodes of The Simpsons were split into two articles (List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (for seasons 21–present)), it made me wonder if we should again think about splitting List of Doctor Who serials.

Many of the arguments against it was that the classic and revived era were the same show, but looking at the given example, the list may be improved if they were split, both in content and performance. As "classic" and "revived" aren't official terms, perhaps something like List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1996) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) would suffice? -- AlexTW 06:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral on this - could probably be convinced either way. Looks like it is a 3 second page generation time (from the page source "CPU time usage: 2.804 seconds; Real time usage: 3.037 seconds") - so it doesn't seem so bad - but I assume it will occur at some point (we are currently at 66% of the allowed "Post‐expand include size"). The suggestion would be the most logical place to split it. While I will point out "classic" is definitely used by the BBC [10] to refer to pre-2005 - however it is probably more appropriate to adopt your recommended titles if this was to proceed. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The split might be useful, but the terminology could present some issues. Not all of the Doctor Who programmes which aired between '63 and '96 were serials. Further, should consideration be given to 'future-proofing' a listing from '05 onward in case the show adopts a serial format at some point? Sprite96 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The majority were serials in the classic era and that fact alone has managed to keep the current list with the label "Serials" even though it hasn't at all accurate for 28 years - so I don't think that it would need to change. I mean we are talking two specials and one single episode (unless I'm forgetting something?). I don't think we need to future proof - as the list can always be renamed if actually needed. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
While reading Sprite96's comment, I started thinking the same thing that Dresken posted before I read Dresken's post - the article has lived with the "serials" title up until now, even with the entirety of the revived era (bar one) being aired as episodes. So, splitting them into a classic serials article would mean that a higher percentage of the episodes listed actually are serials.
The other alternative is that given that we list episodes by story number, rather than number episode overall (as the majority of other television series do), we could use List of Doctor Who stories (1963–1996) and List of Doctor Who stories (2005–present); however, disambiguation would be required to note that we are listing television stories. -- AlexTW 10:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
We could always use "episodes" for both pages. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 03:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
True, as the classic era are still made of episodes, and the episode lists give dates, viewers, AI, etc. for individual episodes, not the serials as a whole. It's the more clearer and understood title as well. -- AlexTW 03:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason to split the article. There is zero evidence that they are different shows. Reliable sources have only ever treated it as one show, and if you want proof, you need look no further back than the most recent episode. The only people who treat it as two shows are the so called fans who just hate everything "new" regardless of what it does. Wikipedia should go with reliable sources, not "fan" opinion. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:ED36:2604:1F61:7BA0 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
And don't try and give me the "we're doing it for space" argument - if that's true, why split it at 1996? There have been 36 series plus specials - so forgive me, but isn't half of that 18? Or if the Simpsons really is your example, then go with 20. The simple reason is that this argument is nothing about space. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:BCC8:BF64:4C63:C165 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
There is not zero evidence. Production completely shutdown after 89. 2005 is slated as Series 1, not Season 27. Same story was continued, but absolutely was different production - that not only can be reliablly sourced but as a bonus considered WP:OUTUNIVERSE version of the two choices. If it were to split, I don’t think an arbitrary halving is the best answer, whereas the major production break seems right - as well as a lot of sources do make a distinction between the classic and NuWho eras. The size argument is a little preemptive - but not irrelevant to discuss - as transclusion does have a hard limit and will eventually break the list. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please do try to be civil. If you'd read my initial post, you would have found me agreeing with the fact that they are the same show. The Simpsons has run continuously, and thus, Season 20 was the place that the editors at the time decided to split, and only applies to that particular series. However, while remaining the same show (again asserting my belief in this too), Doctor Who has who very well-defined production eras, which is noted and used by the BBC themselves - perhaps the most reliable source when it comes to this programme. It therefore makes sense on where to split it. So, yes, this suggestion is based on reliable sources. -- AlexTW 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait - what? Calling it one series is "in universe" now? - rubbish. There's plenty "out of universe" sources - DWM had the '30 reasons to be exited by season 30' in relation to the 2008 series. Planet of the dead was called the 200th story (which by the way is your source for the numbering on the serials page) in several sources, and there were several sources for the 50th anniversary. As for different productions - there have been many different productions. Remember all that confusion in 2010 with Moffat calling his first year 'series 1' because it was the first series of his production? And I'm pretty sure there were several breaks in the 63-89 run as well. And are you really going to tell me with a straight face that splitting it won't imply something more than 'different productions'? It will give the impression - whether you agree with it or not, alex - of being something more. And that is why a split (if it really is needed) should be done at an 'arbitrary' point, so that everyone can see it is arbitrary, and not trying to convey something that doen't fit with how the Show is viewed by it's creators, and several other reliable sources. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:EDCA:ECC7:52D:9A19 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You said "There is zero evidence that they are different shows" - which is the main point I was showing that was some evidence. The majority of sources definitely discuss Classic Who and NuWho (for want of any better names) - so the split is more obvious there. Breaks in the classic series - yes there were probably some you could weed out - but there was absolutely nothing like the period between 89-2005. Production of the TV Series completely shutdown definitively. Calling it one story is fine, but in my view claiming there is no difference between Classic Who and NuWho is absolutely leaning more toward an INUNIVERSE interpretation of sources and completely naive. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A split between classic and new is completely fine, in line with all policies. I would use the years for titles, as regardless, someone is going to find that page with an extra jump through "List of Doctor Who episodes" (which should list the two lists to help). Avoids the SIZE issue problem, and since these aren't sortable lists, there's no need to present them in one massive table. --Masem (t) 22:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree on the years - what's your opinion on the use of serials/episodes/stories in the article titles? And for anyone interested, I've started two user drafts for the split articles, they can be seen at User:AlexTheWhovian/List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1996) and User:AlexTheWhovian/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Most of the content in the first article is transcluded from the latter, as is done with The Simpsons articles, and the latter article contains the lead, overview and general references, given that the latter article will be the one viewed more often due to recentism. The two articles also contain hatnotes to each other, and the overview's season rows are linked to their respective articles. -- AlexTW 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Good work, Alex. 'Episodes' does it for me as a catch-all. 'Stories' is arguably a little too general, as it might conceivably be taken to include other media such as books and comics. Do the differently coloured column headers add anything useful to the lists? The colour selection seems arbitrary rather than indicative (apologies if I'm wrong about that), although it does help to break up the page, I suppose. Sprite96 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The colours for each season help differentiate between each other, and are picked per MOS:TV#Formatting, from their home media art. If you look at each season article, you'll find that the colours match the home media cover art in the infobox. -- AlexTW 13:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Practically (forgiving my ignorance) wasn't the original series broadcast as episodes, just grouped into serials? I have no problem with using "serials" for the first, but if I am correct, then "episodes" also works and keeps consistency. (That said, redirects are also cheap for all possible variations). --Masem (t) 16:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Episode on both could definitely work, as the only difference between the two would be the years, and you are right about the fact that they were broadcast as separate episodes. -- AlexTW 16:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The definition of "serial" is that it is still broadcast as episodes - so I don't quite understand what we are trying to point out here. However serials are quite a distinguishing feature of the classic series - I would lean towards accuracy over consistency. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind, that if we do split, most readers will likely start by searching either "List of Doctor Who episodes" or "List of Doctor Who serials", before being directed to the right year block. The exact term used for the original series is not as critical due to this. --Masem (t) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not fussed with either of them. However, I think we should think about the readers first, and see what they're searching for the most; from Google Trends [11][12], searches with the terms "episodes" are more frequent. Google with eventually update with the correct articles after the split, and I think we should link the 2005–present article in the main article's infobox (as it provides the most recent episodes), and the hatnote at the top will provide a link to the 1963–1996 article (which will also be linked elsewhere in the main article). -- AlexTW 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Most users will type it into the search box at the top of the page. By the time they have typed "list of dr w" the system has already shown a short list of possible titles. So fussing over whether the users will find it with "serial", "episode" or whatever in the title is a non-issue.
I agree that the classic and revived years is the natural place for the split. You might also consider splitting the list for every generation Doctor and use the current List of Dr Who episodes article as a simple index similar to what we did for the Toyota Corolla (which covers a similar number of years and generations to Dr Who).  Stepho  talk  05:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The question is, do most readers visit this article via Google or Wikipedia Search, though? And I wouldn't agree splitting by each Doctor, as some don't have enough to have their own article (two, three seasons, or even one movie), and that would create thirteen separate articles - too many. Two articles should do it. -- AlexTW 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Google is also pretty good at looking for words of a similar nature.
Nothing wrong with short articles. Although the movie could be in the List of Dr Who episodes article instead of splitting it out. After all, its just one line.  Stepho  talk  06:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend not splitting by Doctor. Redirects to the larger lists (by era) work ust fine. --Masem (t) 06:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no basis to split by Doctor. Maybe, if this article included the summaries if the tables weren't transcluded, but they are, so having them in separate sections works perfectly fine. -- AlexTW 08:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Any split would be arbitrary, but 63-96 and 05-present it the most logical. Splitting it by Doctor wouldn't really make sense, since two Doctors came along during a series, so you'd have some of a series in one page, and other ones of the same series on a different page. In regards to naming, I think Doctor Who fans are the only people to make a distinction between 'episode' and 'serial' - non fans are probably going to search for 'episode', and they are probably going to be looking for the most recent ones, so I'd have 'doctor who episodes' link to the 05-present article - and then have a link to the page listing the seasons that came earlier. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest List of Doctor Who serials redirecting to List of Doctor Who episodes, then the latter becoming a disambiguation article with two links, to the split articles. This article should use 2005–present, and as I stated before, both split articles have hatnotes at the top of the page, directing to the other episodes article. -- AlexTW 05:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

After this discussion has gone quiet, it seems there's a pretty clear agreement to split. I suggest the use of List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1996) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), for conformity between the titles. Did anyone have any further comments on this, or should I start splitting form my userspace drafts? -- AlexTW 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The split definitely seems necessary, and I agree with using "episodes" rather than "serials", but I'm not sure about the use of 1996 as the cut-off point. The Paul McGann film really has no more relation to the classic series than it does to the Cardiff one, and using it would give casual readers the impression that the show continued unbroken from the 60s to the 90s, and was only off the air for nine years. It doesn't seem worth extending the "original series" umbrella over seven barren years to cover a spin-off film that isn't really an actual episode of any show and has no production link to either series. I would go with List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and include a couple of lines explaining how the 1996 film fits in the prose introductions of both articles. —Flax5 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The film has more relation to the classic series, with the production choice to include McCoy so significantly ties it that way. I agree the naming should reflect the actual 26 year tenure of the classic series - but that the film remains listed but as a special in that article. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Dresken here. Yes, the years of 1963–1989 are traditionally considered the classic era, but we've already included the film with its own table here, and it's included in the series overview table (both currently and in the drafts). Even the BBC include it in their episode guide. Perhaps we can name it after the 26 years, but we definitely need to include the film. -- AlexTW 03:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Bumping one last time for anymore comments, before I move to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) (updated titles)... -- AlexTW 18:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: Go for it. As the episode list has been called serials for years however, I would suggest making redirects named List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who serials (2005–present) to the obvious articles. TedEdwards 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got a bunch of redirects listed to create. Cheers. -- AlexTW 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, looks like the new series haters are going to get their way finally. They've only been trying since 2005. Here's an idea - why not split is again after 2017 to keep the female doctor haters happy as well. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:14F9:C208:D96C:7ECF (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Funny, since I love the new series... -- AlexTW 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I recognize that the decision has been taken and I'm late to the party (I do wish it were standard practice to put a "major restructuring discussion happening on talk" notice on articles so people could actually know these things are taking place, but that's a WP-wide issue), but I absolutely hate this change. Its main accomplishment is that I regularly have to load two tabs for tasks that previously only took one. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I already notified the WikiProject Doctor Who talk page. "I hate this change" is not a constructive argument, and "I have to load two tabs" is a personal argument that is not supported by any essays, guidelines or policies. -- AlexTW 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I said I recognized that the decision had already been taken, Alex. No need to be snooty about it. You won and got your stupid change; at least have some damn grace in victory, mmm? Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not consider discussions a matter of winning or losing; I take it as a personal attack that you assume that I would stoop so low. Let's take it back to the discussion now, yeah? -- AlexTW 19:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes sir, of course sir. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
+1 to Winter's Tulpa. I'm not part of the Great Bureaucratic Cult of Wikipedia, just a very heavy user of certain articles, so I won't be citing essays, guidelines, or policies, but this change makes using the article(s) more cumbersome. Changes should make pages MORE useful, not less, regardless of what your essays, guidelines, or policies may suggest to the contrary. Gwythinn (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Your personal opinion that you personally admit is based on nothing has been duly noted. Cheers. -- AlexTW 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
"...based on nothing[citation needed]" Based on reality, not Wikipedia's giant pile of imaginary red tape. I'm sure the Time Lords would be impressed by the depth of bureaucratic nonsense around here, but the Doctor would not. The fact of the matter is keeping two tabs open at all times (yes, at all times, I run a Doctor Who podcast and refer to this page -- sorry, these pages very frequently) takes more RAM than one and doubles the effort needed to find relevant information using Ctrl+F. How many stories did Rona Munro write? How many were directed by Graeme Harper? These are typical examples of questions I need the answers to. It used to be one search to find one of these answers, now it's two. Maybe that sounds trivial to you, but try doing a couple of dozen of these in a day. Pretty soon you'll find yourself wanting to find the bureaucrat in charge of the decision to split the pages and tell them to "get off my planet!". Gwythinn (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Again. Your personal opinion, based on your own "business". We don't run by your standards, never have, never will. I'll want to find the one who split it? I'll never need to find them, given that it was me who split the articles, due to the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion - there's a Wikipedia policy for you to read. If you want to have a civil discussion, I recommend you be civil first, else you'll find no-one willing to discuss your apparent grievances. -- AlexTW 21:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
What consensus? the 'space' argument was defeated with the first reply, and by the end people were making no attempt to hide that they were dividing it because they considered it two different shows - despite the BBC having only ONE episode list (which was even linked at one stage) for the whole thing. I always thought wikipedia did stupid things because of people sticking to close to rules rather than reality, but this is the stupidest decision of all. I think WP:IAR may even apply here - because going with the reality of how the BBC have it improves wikipedia. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:C890:4C7D:C4C3:8423 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
You can pretend the consensus doesn't exist all you want; doesn't change the fact that it does. Editors have constantly argued the fact that it is one show, so your belief/attack there has absolutely no basis. The BBC list it their way. We list it ours. We are not the same website. Good luck trying to apply IAR to this - you can either do something about it, or accept that your attacking, whinging and whining is doing absolutely nothing. Unless you think it is? Do you see anything coming out of your posts? Cheerio! -- AlexTW 19:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I see wikipedia being shown for what it really is. a farce controlled by editors with WP:OWN issues who attack any IP who dares argue with them, and quote rules out of context. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:A0B3:253:777:92F (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
My own experience was that the list was too long to navigate comfortably and needed to be broken down. I would have preferred it to broken down by regeneration but consensus didn't go with me, so I live with it. You can't expect WP to be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of every single individual while ignoring the majority. Or you can be a child throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his own way.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
You're not arguing, you're attacking. If anyone has OWN, it's you, as you are demanding your version of the article over the consensus formed. -- AlexTW 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Consensus was reached and a change was made, as is appropriate. Additional discussion is not contributing anything and additional commentary on the matter can be ignored (unless there is evidence of a new consensus). Or, in other words, let's walk away from this argument. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Moves completed

  Done Articles exist at:

Redirects created at:

Disambiguation pages at:

Templates are updated, currently unlinking unlinked usages of the old List of Doctor Who serials article. -- AlexTW 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Need to fix links to disambiguation page List of Doctor Who episodes. -- AlexTW 09:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested split - Doctor Who (1963-1989) and Doctor Who (2005-Present)

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

This article should be slit into two articles - one for (1963-1989) and one for (2005-Present). Talking about it as one show is "INUNIVERSE" - and it is "completely naive" to think otherwise. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:85D9:187D:F4EA:F9A0 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article can be reworded slightly so that it explicitly talks about the franchise. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
This is nothing but a snarky attempt to get their way after they didn't "win" the discussion above. The article is fine as is. -- AlexTW 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You are quoting me out of context - even the original sentence that it comes from also contains "Calling it one story is fine". It seems to me that you are trying to disruptively prove a WP:POINT and that makes you appear spiteful for not getting you way on the "list of episodes" split. Dresken (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
No thank you. Just because an egregious mistake was made with the list article doesn't mean we should propagate it to every other article that could possibly suffer the same fate. When you shoot yourself in the foot, you don't then shoot yourself in the other foot so that they'll match. Gwythinn (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Please follow WP:NPA, as you yourself cited. Cheerio. -- AlexTW 22:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, I knew these would happen 😂 Double Plus Ungood (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing as Gay- or Lesbian-related

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments11 people in discussion

Since AlexTheWhovian restored a bold addition made by Pyxis Solitary on November 25 when trying to restore the article to a state before the recent categorization disputes and I don't feel like edit-warring over anything, I'm bringing this here. While gay, lesbian and bisexual characters have appeared on the show, none of those appearances defined the show per WP:CATDEF, so I'm proposing we restore the old status quo and remove any such categories from the page. Pinging @DonQuixote and Roscelese who were also involved. Regards SoWhy 08:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

These inclusions do seem like they do not meet WP:CATDEF and should be removed. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe these categories would be better-placed on the articles for individual series? Doctor Who (series 10) is notably lesbian-related even if none of the preceding 35 series are. —Flax5 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in [[Category:Gay-related television programs]] in the same way that it shouldn't be in the [[Category:Black British television programmes]]. It features characters with those traits, but it's not a defining characteristic of the programme (or even series 10). DonQuixote (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above; this should not be in the LGBT-related categories as a program, but definitely some characters (Bill, Jack) can be put appropriately into the LGBT-related ones. I had issues before with Pyrix's mass tagging of TV programs claiming that just because there was a LGBT character that that made the show about LBGT themes which is absolutely not universally true. --Masem (t) 16:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that it does not belong in the category. PS has not grasped the WP:CATDEF statement "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose". MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll add to the growing agreement. As a comparison, you wouldn't put it in Category:Television shows set in London because some episodes are set there, although it would be reasonable to have EastEnders there. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It is non-defining of the show. Doctor Who is also not a show about, to name a couple of other things, the Victorian era, lizards, Roman Britain, etc. The appropriate thing to do would be to list Bill in the "Fictional lesbians" category, where I see she already is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the emerging consensus, although I am reminded of that Paul Cornell quote... what was it? Something like: all Dr Who fandom is gay, or at least all interesting Dr Who fandom is gay. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Good job guys! 😊 Double Plus Ungood (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Main article List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens basically a giant fanservice table now

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The main purpose of the table seems to be to confirm without references that an alien species which appeared once in the classic series has (a) never been seen again (b) been mentioned, like, once, or (c) has made another appearance, in either the TV Movie (yes, it's set up as a category), the new series (all expressed in terms of Doctors, i.e. in-universe), Sarah Jane Adventures, Torchwood, K9 & Company and the Australian K9 series (hey why not throw in the The Stranger and BBV too), which has a dubious relationship to the show, and finally Class. I think we need to have a serious conversation about what to do with it, and how a list article got turned into that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A request to alter the current image to reflect the revised Doctor Who logo. 81.102.210.193 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Also join primary discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#NEW LOGO! TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proper Image for Infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Okay, I'm gonna start afresh this subject, but to give us a more decisive, clear discussion on this issue between editors. We need to clearly consider what the image for the infobox is in the future, and come up with a clear, precise consensus amongst editors on what should be used once a good amount of votes is made. The topic of this discussion can be stipulated by just one question:

"What should be the image that we use in the Infobox for Doctor Who?

Considering the discussion that has been made on the subject, there is quite a lot of opinions regarding what image should be used. The most notable aspects have been about: "What image is the correct one to be used?" "Does it conform to Wikipedia's policies?" "Should it change the way editors have altered the image in the past?" "Which images are unacceptable?"

Based upon this, I have set out four options for what the image in the Infobox could be, with every option needing to have an image that should at least be representative of the show itself:

  1. The original logo for Doctor Who; a free version if available, otherwise a non-free version.
  2. The original titlecard for Doctor Who.
  3. The current logo for Doctor Who; again, a free version if available, otherwise a non-free version.
  4. The current titlecard for Doctor Who.

For this discussion, let me set just a few ground rules for everyone to understand:

  • Everyone who votes may voice their opinion for why they chose to vote for the option they supported
  • Respect other editors' personal opinions and vote.
  • Do not comment on another editor's vote, especially if they support an option that opposes your own choice; forcing your own point of view on them goes against WP:BLUDGEON.

Please, let us form a general consensus on this matter and resolve it in due time. GUtt01 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the difference between 'logo' and titlecard' - but I think the only common sense answer is that is should be the current one. The logo that wiki should use is one that IS used, not one that WAS used. A logo that is no longer used cannot substitute for one that IS used - and I don't care if a 'free version' or not - because a non free current logo is inherently better than any logo no longer used - because it demonstrates something that IS used. But then wikipedia isn't very good at common sense. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:832:E819:189F:F337 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Opening a new discussion was completely unnecessary. Why would you “start afresh” when we are still in the middle of an RfC on exactly the same subject? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So, it's just a coincidence that this comes as the tide of the RfC begins to turn in Alex's favour, is it? This is really getting out of hand now. How exactly do you, User:GUtt01 personally have the authority to interrupt, override and essentially replace an ongoing RfC? Answer: You do not. When did you obtain consensus to do this? Or for "your" ground rules? You do not WP:OWN this page, this dicussion, or anythinge else on Wikipedia Doctor Who-related or otherwise. By the way, RfC is not a vote in the sense that if everyone vote to go against Wikipedia policies we do it! It's exactly what it says it is, a request for comment. You do not get to dictate how people respond to an RfC. You do not get to decide that the last original RfC is now "over" and "yours" is now the one that counts. Had I not read this today, would my two cents from the "last" (read: official, real) RfC somehow not count? What do you think happens if the results of your question were different to those of the RfC--which must go on for a month? I say "yours" but the reality is, there's only one RfC here. Do you expect people to stop replying to the original? There's no reason they should. I think it's time we got admins to look at this whole process because as of now it has come completely unravelled--unless you choose to rewrite your suggestions as suggestions for the existing RfC, without changing the original questions. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who/Archive_29&oldid=1136666645"