Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 December 2006 and 30 January 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archives

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

Two parters

Looking at Aliens of London just now, I had a thought - why not merge two-parters from the new series together. It might save quite a bit of repeating ourselves. I don't know what they would be called, though. --Thelb⁴ 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it would make for a really, really long article, and it's not like the old days when they were a discrete production code. Also, the production team treats them as separate episodes, with separate production paperwork, despite a continuing story. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've done a mock-up of Aliens of London/World War Three. --Thelb⁴ 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I was against this until I looked at your example, and now I'm starting to think it might not be a bad idea. In terms of Wikipedia bigest concerns would be the title of the article - "Aliens of London/World War Three" seems really awkward, although I guess with proper redirects it wouldn't be a problem. And then, as khaosworks says, we run into article length. I don't think it would be as bad as it might seem, because a lot of the notes are going to be duplicated between episodes - and looking at your sample, the notes don't seem any longer than any other episode. The main issue seems to be the plot desciption, but (and this is sort of a different topic), I think our plot descriptions tend to be waaay too long and detailed anyway, so much so that we're possibly running into copyright infringement territory. In any event, I definitely think your idea is worth more discussion. --Brian Olsen 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment above seemed to have gotten truncated somehow - I was trying to say, "In terms of Wikipedia, notability for a full story might be easier to justify than two seperate articles for each half of a full story. My biggest concerns..." Not sure how I deleted before saving the page... --Brian Olsen 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. I see them as two episodes, per the American (non serial) standard. Captain Jack Harkness and End of Days was a two-parter of sorts, but also two separate episodes. With TSJA however, they will 5 two-part episodes... I think we should treat those as five hour long episodes and not ten half hour long ones.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that the current naming standard is the same as what was done in the Hartnell Era. That would leave us needing separate articles for An Unearthly Child, The Tribe of Gum, 25 minutes of running around and screaming, and Whatever part four was called. (We don't list the episode titles here?) After all, the current two parters are what was once the standard length for a Doctor Who story.Algr 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are good arguments for and against, but I think that the determining factor will have to be how the episodes are named. If the SJA episodes are under one title with "Part 1" and "Part 2", it'll obviously be easy to put them into a single article, but if the two-part story is composed of episodes with different titles article naming becomes very awkward. I think that's the determining factor for two-part Doctor Who stories as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started to shorten the plot, but I think it needs a complete rewrite to make it much shorter. --Thelb⁴ 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures needed

...for the List of Torchwood minor characters. Could someone with the capabilities please take and add some to the article? It's particularly important for the other Captain Jack character as someone has already arrived confused and changed the actor credits to John Barrowman. It would also be useful for Bilis Manger and Diane Holmes. We could use the period piece pictures from the website, but then it would jar with the higher-res full-colour pictures of Lisa Hallett, Rhys Williams, PC Andy and Suzie Costello. Thansks! ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maria Jackson, Luke Smith, Kelsey Harper and Mr Smith could all do with images too, along with the characters on List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters. --GracieLizzie 19:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Billis and Captain Jack 1941 done for TW, Maria, Luke, Kelsey and Smith done for TSJA. Hope this helps, now lets hope someone doesn't decide to orphan them with "promos" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, promos would give us more than head shots. I was kinda hoping for shots of all of their upper bodies not just their heads and shoulders. The Mr Smith one though is spot on. --GracieLizzie 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, can you prove they are promos? What makes it a promo because it came from the BBC website? Nothing. That poor little {{promo}} tag is abused :-(, hehe. Oh and if do decide to upload new versions use the feature entitled "Upload a new version" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've used the upload new version feature to upload cropped versions of the Captain and Bilis Manger's pictures (which are very nice by the way) and I've gotten rid of the stuff that surrounds the when they are thumbnails so they are inline with the rest of the images in the file. --GracieLizzie 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Smith

Assuming there's no objections, I'm going to disambiguate Mr Smith later this evening. Right now, there is a disambiguation page at Mister Smith, a Doctor Who article at Mr Smith (no period), and a music album article at Mr. Smith with period). Given that "Mr", "Mr.", and "Mister" all mean the same thing, and are used interchangeably, it's a bit of a mess. My plan is to move Mr. Smith to Mr. Smith (album), Mr Smith to Mr. Smith (''some acceptable Doctor Who disambiguator''), and point Mr and Mr. Smith to the disambiguation page, which already has links for the Who/music articles. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia's guidelines were to avoid suffixes unless their is no other option, which is why I've went with Mr Smith instead of Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). --GracieLizzie 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but in this case there isn't enough of a distinction between "Mr", "Mr.", and "Mister". It's similar to what happens sometimes with page moves - an article like "Able Baker (Charlie)" might get moved to "Able Baker" to avoid using a disambiguator, but there may already be an article at "Able baker". Wikipedia's coding treats each article as being distinct, but it creates problems for real-world use. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Well I don't mind, though I shall say I'd rather we used the suffix (The Sarah Jane Adventures) than (Whoniverse) or anything else, I dislike Whoniverse being used too much outside the Whoniverse article and because he/it only appears in TSJA so far anyway. --GracieLizzie 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it should be at Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). --Brian Olsen 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that Mr. Smith deserves an article of his (its?) own yet — I'd have kept it/him at List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters for now. (Based on Invasion of the Bane, I'd say Mr. Smith was a somewhat less important character than Maria's father.) However, if we want to keep the article, I agree that Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) or Mr Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) is the best alternative. My understanding is that conventional UK writing style omits the full stop after "Mr", so the latter may be best. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - it's now at Mr Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). Thanks for the input on the disambiguation tag, and the suggestion re: "Mr". I double-checked the episode credits and they did in fact use "Mr" (no period), so I've also redirected Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) to the correct page. I'll try to get to correcting the other links that were affected as quickly as I can. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Smith is a technology not a character, to me it looks like Mr Smith is going to be TSJA's TARDIS or Rift. That's why he needs his own article. --GracieLizzie 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

TSJA

For adding suffixes to Sarah Jane articles in future (I'm thinking episodes) do we use the very long "(The Sarah Jane Adventures)" or can we do like WP:TREK and WP:BUFFY and shorten it? Maybe it can be "Episode one (TSJA)" or "Episode one (Sarah Jane episode)" or something? I just think the titles are going to be so huge for some episodes...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:TITLE would seem to recommend against "Episode Name (TSJA)" or "Episode Name (SJA)", but we might get away with "Episode Name (Sarah Jane Adventures)" over "Episode Name (The Sarah Jane Adventures)" if we're consistent. Percy Snoodle 13:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer the full name, but that's just me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer thing (SJA) should be used over (TSJA) people usually don't abbreviate words like "The" anyways. The Core-Man 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Saying for the sake of an argument, Invasion of the Bane was taken, would we name it:

• Invasion of the Bane (TSJA) (like The Next Generation or Deep Space Nine being abbreviated to TNG or DS9 etc.)
• Invasion of the Bane (SJA)
• Invasion of the Bane (Sarah Jane) (like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer being abbreviated to Buffy)
• Invasion of the Bane (Sarah Jane Adventures) or
• Invasion of the Bane (The Sarah Jane Adventures) (like the full title used in articles relating to The Suit Life of Zack & Cody)?

~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the guideline Percy pointed to (and personal preference), I think we should avoid the acronyms. The full title - with the "The" (since it is part of the title) - is less ambiguous. I think the only strike against it might be its length, but that's not an issue for the reader (who likely wouldn't be finding episode articles by typing the whole thing out anyway). --Brian Olsen 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed sounds fine. Should we have 'production codes' though for the episodes? That's where the acronym should be used. The Core-Man 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean, Core-Man? I'm afraid I don't quite follow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he means we make up codes such as 4S using "TSJA". --Jamdav86 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. For some reason, I'm obsessed with Production Codes. I have them for everything "Who". For my own reference materials I've been using SJA for "The Sarah Jane Adventures" The Core-Man 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine for your own work, but I think that we shouldn't be making up codes here. The codes used in the classic series and in (most) Big Finish audios are used by the people who make the programme. The current television programmes don't use those sort of codes, and it would be misleading to suggest that they do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has to rely on reliable sources — an abbreviation we made up isn't a reliable source.

That said, if a reliable source like Doctor Who Magazine uses some sort of production codes, that would justify our using them. We just can't lead the way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh! The bbc homepage lists it as /sja. Does that count as an official acronym? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. The BBC like to have easy to remember and easy to type URLs - they pride themselves on their accessibility. /sja is much easier to use than /sarahjaneadventures, so they probably just use it because its easier. Smomo 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who at the BBC: The Plays

The viability of the article for Doctor Who at the BBC: The Plays, the Beeb's compilation CD release of three radio dramas about how Doctor Who affects people out in the real world, has come into question. If you have a moment, please look over the article, and then hop over to the article's talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks! Rob T Firefly 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about Captain Jack Harkness

Has it been revealed yet as to how Captain Jack was able to get from the events in the 2002nd century to the time of the Torchwood Television series? Just wondering. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it involves the Rift. Other than that, all we know is he didn't surf there.--Aderack 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless he had an extrapolator... SalemMacGourley 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He did seem to spend alot of time with the extrapolator in Boom Town and The Parting of the Ways, is there a possiblity he could of made a duplicate. He is a con-man after all...... --I.W 15:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Earth

There's quite a lot of information about the specific history of Earth in Doctor Who, which differs quite considerably with non-Whoniverse Earth. Interesting politics, countless invasions, organisations, plots to destroy, interesting formation (Racnoss core, Mondas twin), mythical properties (Rift and Abaddon). Would Earth (Doctor Who) or Earth (Whoniverse) be a useful article? What I mean to ask is, would anyone consider contributing to such an article if it was created? Since future stories are frequent, would it be any different to an article about Skaro or Mars? There could also be a history of the Earth, also detailing the various parrallel universes. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh. Theres that word! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the appeal of an article like the one you describe, but it would be very difficult to avoid original research. (Actually, I think that Whoniverse is rather OR-ish, but I won't make a stink about it right now.) If you can cite specific episodes and, as much as possible, notable secondary sources (like the Discontinuity Guide, Lance Parkin's AHistory or the About Time series by Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood), such an article might be all right, but you'd have to be very careful to avoid anything which resembles a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mars (Doctor Who) is a great prototype as to how it could be done, I'd say. Excellent suggestion. Radagast 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Possivle link to personal website

I know that you good Dr Who wikipedians will catch this anyway but I thought that I would let you know that User:Tom Prankerd is adding reviews of various televised stories to a website entitled CounterX. A quick perusal of the site lead me to deduce that it is this editors own site based on the number of wikipedia articles on Formula 1 Drivers that they have edited here and the opening paragraph of the F1 section of the CounterX website. Now if these are okay with you all that is just fine with me but if they are not I thought I would try to alert you early to cut back on the amount of work that will be necessary to remove them and so that you can alert the user to any problem that adding them to the external links section causes. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here contribute to...

wikia:Tardis at all? Just found it. Sadly it lacks a lot of the detail that regular Wikipedia articles have on characters, with a lot of OR and inaccuracy that a part of me really wants to get serious about correcting. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't, no. - I rarely leave Wikipedia except for Memory Alpha, The 4400 Wiki and Battlestar Wiki. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A total disappointment. It's just a shell of what Wikipedia has to offer for DW. The Core-Man 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited there a little bit in February and March 2005, when there was really nothing there. Then I discovered the extensive Doctor Who content here on Wikipedia, and began editing here more regularly — never really went back. Bit of a shame, since there's certainly room for a Doctor Who-based wiki like Memory Alpha, going into more detail than we can here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A point holding me back is the fact it's on a Wikia sub-domain. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite: Jack Harkness

Okay, the Captain Jack article is very popular, obviously. Problem is as his history has been added in dribs and drabs, it reads like "and this was revealed about Jack, and this was revealed about Jack... then we learnt this about him..." - very nonlinear. Would it make sense to reconstruct it like...

TITLE
Context paragraph and infobox
(some of which could be moved to a descriptive section, adding themes which follow Jack's character around)
==Characterisation==
Some of the context from before goes here, as well as the information about Jack's character. Stuff regarding the character's sexuality, themes like the value of human life, etc. would all go here. A line or two touching on the rank of captain, too.
==Character history==
===Before ''Doctor Who''===
Information about the war in the future, Time Agency, con man, Lahore, WW2, becoming "Jack", meeting Estelle etc. (Pre-The Empty Child)
===''Doctor Who'' season 1===
Literal summarisation of the events.
===''Torchwood'' season 1===
Literal summarisation of the events.
===''Doctor Who'' season 3===
We don't need this just yet anyway.
==Other appearances==
Books.
==Powers and abilities==
Could improve.
==Episodes== (could be renamed "Appearances in Doctor Who universe" to include books.)
;Doctor Who
;Torchwood
(doesn't require subsections imo)
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

As I see it, this article should improve lots. Similar articles would be Andrew Van De Kamp, Buffy Summers. I'm not entirely certain how it should be formatted which is why I've come here instead of reworking it. For example, Spike (Buffyverse) has a subsection of history entitled "Appearance and Personality", whereas the Andrew Van De Kamp one has an entire section on "Character". Buffy Summers' history is split into "Sunnydale" and "Italy", whereas Spike's is "Sunnydale" and "Los Angeles" etc.

I definitely think we should have a section about Jack's character, and to have his history spelt out in an out-of-universe format. The article on Memento gives the film's events in chronological order, not the way the film explains it etc.

So yeah, I think Jack's page should be brought up the quality of say, Doctor (Doctor Who). ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be proposing to rewrite it in in-universe format (Jack's experience order), not out-of-universe format (which would be the same as broadcast order). Morwen - Talk 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not in-universe, it's just clearer. Like Memento being detailed in the actual event orderm not narrative description. Everything is still presented in broadcast order, including explanations of how everything was revealed. The most similar to Jack Harkness with an article would be Angel (Buffyverse). It's still out-of-universe, citing episodes, interviews, and not just some sort of story retelling. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Donna Noble

Someone's changed Donna Noble from a redirect to The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who) to a stub on the character. I can see arguments on both sides on this one: on the one hand, barring a few seconds in Doomsday everything about her could be included in the article on the special. On the other hand, excepting her appearance in the DWM comic strip, the same coud be said of Grace Holloway. So I figured I should bring it up here rather than blindly revert to the redirect. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing to say about her that isn't said in the Runaway Bride so I would agree to it being a redirect. Tim! 08:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue with Donna is that, unlike some (mostly) one episode characters, her actor's name appears in the opening credits and in DWM 378 (page 28 if you wish to check) Russell T Davies says that all the people in the production office at least consider her a companion. However I do see why people want to simply redirect her name to The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who) because she is largely a one episode character. Perhaps she should have her own subsection of The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who), like the Isolus have in Fear Her? However that could encourage people to add character subsections to other articles for other characters like Chloe Webber or Mrs Moore which would make the episode articles a bit messy. --GracieLizzie 11:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It should definitely be redirected. There is nothing of value in the article, except maybe its (non-applied) character categories which could always be placed on a redirect since she is a minor character of special significance (like Suzie Costello).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to redirect it to List of Doctor Who supporting characters#with the Tenth Doctor, and add the note on her name in the title to the notes section there? That way, if that list is ever reformatted in the style of the other minor topics lists, the information and the correct redirect are in place. Percy Snoodle 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, while that list sure looks more like a list of companions as opposed to supporting characters, I'd point out that Mickey, Rose, Jackie, Jack, Adam, Martha, Jake etc. all already have articles due to their multiple appearances. So that list would never be expected to be expanded in the same way as List of Torchwood minor characters. And, if it ever it were expanded in such a way, it would most likely begin with {{main|The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)}} anyway. All the information about Donna is in the plot section for Runaway Bride. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the page to The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who), but also added it to Category:Doctor Who companions. That way, we're sort of covered on both fronts. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough call, and Grace is the obvious model. (Perhaps also Sara Kingdom?) If Donna should reappear even once more, whatever the medium, she should get her own article. A cameo in a novel or the DWM comic, for instance would be enough. When the production team refers to her as a companion; when the actor's name appears above the series title; when it appears her character has a significant role in the Doctor's character arc, she's really begging to be singled out.--Aderack

The Spiridons

I was stub sorting earlier and encountered this new article. I made some minor improvements but a project member might want to merge it into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. Don't forget to check Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Spiridons before adding a delete tag. :-) Random Passer-by 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect, maybe? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Spoiler about|a recent Big Finish audio (to name it would give it away — avert your gaze if you don't want to know!)}}

My inclination is redirect too, but I'm not sure whether it's better to redirect to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens#S or Planet of the Daleks. It's also worth noting that the Spiridons have appeared in spin-off fiction, most recently in the audio Return of the Daleks, but also (I think) in the DWM comic strip "Emperor of the Daleks". It could be argued that this gives the Spiridons as much right to their own article as, say, the Zygons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(In case you want a neutral outsider's view.) You're the experts but I'd move the content paragraph to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens#S and redirect there because The Spiridons are a species (if it was Spiridon then I'd redirect it to Planet of the Daleks although if you feel they're becoming notable characters then you should probably remove the notability tag and expand the article. Random Passer-by 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Second thoughts) I think I was wrong earlier and if you decide on a redirect, instead of expansion, then the rediredt should go to Planet of the Daleks. I'll go away and mind my own business now. ;-) Random Passer-by 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Merged to the list and added a mention of Return of the Daleks for good measure. Tim! 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly piped links in redirects now work. Tim! 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

I believe all of the episode articles are more or less standardized now. You might want to poke through and adjust a few things here and there. The next project, I think, should be systematically cutting down the plot sections to no more than a paragraph or two per episode. --Aderack 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Aderack! I commend you.

Y'know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost has Image:Lostbarnstar.jpg to give to editors who make exceptional contributions to articles related to Lost. Is there anyone here who's good with image manipulation, and could create a similar barnstar for us? Maybe a barnstar placed on the side of a police box (y'know, like the actual barnstars were placed on barns?) Just a thought. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in this, I have created these two images. Personally, I prefer the first one.

Image:TARDISbarnstar1.jpg

Image:TARDISbarnstar2.gif

Smomo 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are lovely! I too prefer the first one, and move that we adopt it as the official Doctor Who Barnstar, for excellent work on Doctor Who-related articles. If others agree, I'll submit it for approval as our WikiProject award. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my approval. It would be nice to hear some other peoples opinions. Smomo 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If ever images are needed i can create on request, i am on wiki some times but not long enough to create a proper acount. just leave a message, i am happy to help anytime. Joker1138

I've proposed it at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Doctor Who WikiProject Award. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Torchwood episodes - screen captures

An editor just added screen captures ((4:3) - duplicating our already existent superior images) - I've reverted the editor (User:Avt tor) and invited he/she to open discussion here, what's everybody elses opinion? Personally I don't see the need for us to use the screen captures in the LOEs, we have 13 very good articles for Torchwood, each with its own good cap. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The lack of screen shots on the episode list looks like an oversight to me. I'm not seeing consensus on this subject. If there are already screen shots people like, there's no need for me to be capturing images. Avt tor 02:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of said LOE I can tell you it was not an oversight, I did not add image cells as the 'Who LOE does not use them, while I support images in LOEs there is/was a lot of controversy. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So it's an intentional oversight. I don't take any single opinion as representing consensus. Usually appropriate images enhance an article, and usually the only reason for leaving screen shots out of an episode list is that nobody can get them, from what I've seen. Avt tor 06:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also a question of whether using images in a list is acceptable under the fair use policy. Of course, that policy is the subject of a lot of heat and noise at the moment, so it's hard to say what the actual policy is. I'm a supporter of the use of fair use images on Wikipedia in general, but I can see the argument against their inclusion in lists (fair use images shouldn't be merely "decorative"). On the other hand, if members of the project as a whole and editors at List of Torchwood episodes in particular decide that they want images, I won't stand in the way — there are plenty of other episode lists on Wikipedia which do have images, and they've survived so far. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Question isn't about fair use; I defer to established practice and reliable sources on that. It was represented to me that Doctor Who project pages are somehow different from other television series pages for stylistic/esthetic reasons. Avt tor 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that as a project we've had any discussions about whether to have images on episode lists or not; we do have a project guideline that limits the use of images in episode articles to a single screenshot, which may have been what Matthew was thinking of.

But the fair use considerations shouldn't be dismissed quite so quickly. Wikipedia:Fair use says, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." My inclination is that an image of an episode in an episode list doesn't quite meet this standard (although it's not really a clear-cut case). Furthermore, using fair use images in episode lists has been controversial in the past. (See here, here and here for some examples.)

My feeling is that the marginal benefit of having images in the episode list isn't worth the potential Sturm und Drang that would ensue if one of the anti-fair use extremists were to target the page. Fair use is an ongoing battle on Wikipedia, and if you want to keep fair use images you've got to choose your ground. I think that we're better off defending the use of images in our major articles than in a list of episodes — but then, I'm just one Wikipedian, and I don't really have any more say than anyone else. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have skimmed the debates linked. Have to say I find it kind of odd to see certain individuals interpreting the same policy differently on different pages. Which is kind of the question I was asking, not "what is fair use law" (which I understand) or "what is fair use policy" (which should not vary from page to page), but "why are the Doctor Who pages different from other TV episode lists?" What I got mainly from the first discussion was a strong sense of distaste for editors who unilaterally revert without discussion or consensus, a practice I also strongly disapprove of, and on the second two discussions I saw a general consensus agreeing that the use of images on lists was a reasonable interpretation of fair use law (specifically that proposals to interpret policy more narrowly were clearly rejected), which is also consistent with my understanding.

What I am hearing from you, particularly re "Sturm und Drang", is that you want to avoid Wikipedia politics. Seems odd, but it's certainly subject to consensus. Avt tor 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What I am hearing from you is that you are under a false impression that all LOEs use screen captures, I can tell you for certain some do not use them in their LOEs but do use them in their own pages, some have even gone against using images all together. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Avt, you're right that there is little clarity on how to interpret the fair use policy: it's the subject of some very vigorous debating at the moment. You're also right that I'd prefer to avoid Wikipedia politics — or, more accurately, I'd like to avoid a nasty Wiki-political slapfight landing on pages under this project's purview. I've recently been involved in a drawn-out dispute that ended in an arbitration case, and frankly I'm tired of fighting. I'd rather work on improving articles. So, when I see someone proposing something which is likely to draw this WikiProject into one of the most vitriolic debates on Wikipedia right now, I'm going to try to discourage it. This may be seen as cowardice, but I prefer to think of it as choosing my battles and keeping my powder dry. There are Wikipedians who want to eliminate all fair use images on Wikipedia, and they have some significant support. I think this is a terrible idea, and I'd rather use an article like Doctor Who to argue against it than a marginal case such as a list of episodes.

That said, you are also correct that the decision of whether to use images on List of Torchwood episodes is subject to consensus. So far, only three editors have expressed their opinions about this, so it's hard to tell what the consensus is. I invite others to join the discussion, either here or at Talk:List of Torchwood episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll join in then...I'm against the screen caps on episode lists. I think it's difficult to justify under fair use, and especially so considering we already have episodes on individual episodes. Our policy of one picture per episode page seems right on to me. --Brian Olsen 16:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fan commentary links

User 203.9.186.134 has been adding links to a page of fan-made commentaries to some of the episode pages. I was about to start taking them off as non-notable, but I just wanted to mention them here first in case there's some notability to them that I'm not seeing. The anon user adding them seems pretty vocal about the notabilty of alternate commentaties, so some other opinions couldn't hurt. Here's an example - MMM Commentaries mp3 commentary on episode one - from The Faceless Ones. --Brian Olsen 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Random Passer-by has already done it...I'll be bolder next time... --Brian Olsen 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, I've just referred User 203.9.186.134 to this project from my talk page. I hope any resulting discussions are fruitful for both sides. See User talk:Random Passer-by#External links to MMM Commentaries (on .mp3 files) for the relevant exchange. Random Passer-by 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Edited to correct link) Random Passer-by 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who novels?

After wondering if the category Lists of novels was any proper for any of the corresponding Doctor Who book series articles as Past Doctor Adventures, &c... I decided: why not create a listing of all of them? Any thoughts?* *Or would that be problematic having the like around? DrWho42 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Category:Doctor Who books, which includes the Category:Doctor Who books, had somehow previously been included in the Category:Short stories. Don't ask me how, I dunno. I just found it there. I think that no one would object to seeing the Category:Doctor Who books placed in the Category:Novels by series, and will actually do that now. Regarding the specific list, that's something a project member would have to answer. I'm not one. There is however an existing List of Doctor Who novelisations which you might be able to use. Hope that helps a little. Badbilltucker 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the category change, Badbilltucker. I think that a single list of Doctor Who novels would be redundant with the existing lists by novel line (List of Doctor Who novelisations, Virgin New Adventures, Virgin Missing Adventures, Eighth Doctor Adventures, Past Doctor Adventures and New Series Adventures). A single list would just duplicate the content of those articles, wouldn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a page that provides an overview of the various novel ranges, and links to each? That could be helpful. Right now, the navigation panel just links to the category, which is kind of hard to make sense of if you don't know what you're looking at. It can start by discussing the Target novelisations; then explain how the VNAs grew out of those once there was nothing left to novelise; then go on about the BBC taking the novels in-house after the TVM -- with side mentions to the PDAs and whatnot as they come about. It can also briefly discuss the impact the novel ranges had on the show and fandom, with a bunch of new series writers coming from the novels and some people even becoming fans of the novel range instead of the original TV show. --Aderack 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really; there's an overview at Doctor Who spin-offs#Prose fiction (a header I just created), but there's no article that covers just written Doctor Who fiction. I can see more value in such an article explaining the history and context of Doctor Who fiction in print than in a mere list of novels (which I still think would be redundant with existing articles). If you feel like spinning out such an article from Doctor Who spin-offs, feel free; that page could probably use a restructuring anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Infinite Quest

Heck, wasn't expecting this - [1]. What do we do with this now? (i.e. does it go in the List of Doctor Who serials or spinoffs, or what?) - NP Chilla 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Good lord what are the BBC doing :-\! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there goes my dream of a Cosgrove-Gonzo production of Rose Tyler: Earth Defence, heh (yeah I know it was never going to happen). It seems to me this is going to be too significant just to stick in the Totally Doctor Who article in the long run but perhaps it could got their for now? Or should we treat it as a serial? --GracieLizzie 19:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My early inclination was to keep it in Totally Doctor Who for now, but since The Infinite Quest has been created, and will eventually be more than a stub, I suppose it can stay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This Maybe a stupid question but I must know.

I would like to contribute to this wiki but I would just like to have a quick rundown on current progress, User:joker1138

Joker, you're welcome to contribute, but I don't quite understand what you're asking here. Could you clarify a bit? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats the diffrence between Wikiproject Doctor Who and this [[2]]. ????? ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.223.51 (talk • contribs) 01:05, January 29, 2007 (UTC)

Wikia TARDIS is a separate wiki dedicated to Doctor Who, hosted on the commercial site Wikia. The Doctor Who WikiProject is a group of editors on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (You'll notice that there are ads on Wikia TARDIS's pages; there are none on Wikipedia.)

Wikipedia's Doctor Who articles, like all Wikipedia articles, are bound by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (such as "neutral point of view" and "no original research"). Wikia TARDIS's articles are not; therefore they have more license to include fan theories that might not meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. So Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia are more encyclopedic and often more thorough; articles on Wikia TARDIS may be more "fannish". Does that help? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So its like this [[3]] ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.242.91.200 (talk • contribs) 15:29, January 29, 2007 (UTC)

Yep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why not just edit the TARDIS wiki and pull that up to standard hell with all these users it would not take that long at all, things have already started moving there... ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00:46, January 30, 2007 (talk • contribs) 84.13.12.215.

Well, speaking for myself, I'd rather make sure the Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia (so often the #1 Google hit for a topic) are up to snuff than work on a small wiki that won't be noticed. Other editors may have other reasons.

By the way, it's considered polite to sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who Appreciation Society

I've started to expand this article - advice and feedback from established project participants would be welcome. Matthew Kilburn 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me so far, Matthew. I'm afraid I'm not much good on the DWAS (I was only a member for a few years around the turn of the century), but if I recall there are chapters in The Seventies and The Eighties from Howe-Stammers-Walker which might have some useful material, if you have access to those. Angmering 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Doctor Who serials novelised by Terrance Dicks

Newly created and for all those novelisations Dicks did, is the category name too lengthy or just right? Thoughts? DrWho42 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - makes one wonder why no-one thought of it before! - NP Chilla 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)