Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Troilus and a re-write of The Mythmakers

An anon editor has made this interesting addition to Troilus suggesting a re-write of The Mythmakers to produce an unconventional ending to the Troilus and Cressida story because the producers did not wish to renew Maureen O'Brien's contract [1]. Does someone have a reference from an RS for this? (The article is a GA which I want to get up to FA, and therefore I do need a reference.) Thanks. --Peter cohen (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[2] would work - it's been held up as reliable in quite a lot of GAs and FAs. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now I've followed it up, this seems to be a partial reference. It confirms that the producers wanted to write Vicki out, but doesn't confirm the exstence of any quick re-write to reverse the conclusion of the Troilus and Cressida story from a previous plan to have it end traditionally Perhaps Sullivan's sources might confirm things?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shannon has now updated site to include info. BTW, has any one got access to Doctor Who Magazine #284, 17th November 1999 and is able to give page numbers for the article on this episode?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

{{PageStatus}}

Just to let you know, {{PageStatus}} makes WikiProject lists of articles easier to manage! You may wish to implement it. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 4)

Just to let folks know that after an intensive, high-powered and deeply amusing edit-war over the title of episode 12 ("it says so in DWM"/"War On Skaro Ill keep saying this until you let it stand you twat"...) the page has been sprotected until July - as has "Journey's End". Just to let people know! —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I have DWM, and no title for episode 12 is given. In fact, one page says that they hope to keep it secret till the press release. 129.215.149.98 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know - that's why it was naughty of them to lie :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just nominated War on Skaro for deletion... Stephenb (Talk) 15:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Borusa still a stub?

So, I was perusing through some Doctor Who stuff, when I followed the link to Borusa... and I see at the bottom the listing that the article is a DW stub (as is the rating on the talk page). And I'm wondering... 1. IS it still considered a stub? 2. if so, WHY?

Anyway, I guess maybe this is kind of a newbie question, but I'd appreciate some responses to help me know how to improve things in general... thanks, Umrguy42 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

At a first glance, it is still a stub, as per WP:DW/A. However, if you feel it is start-class feel free to re-assess it, but keeping to the guidelines. Thanks - Weebiloobil (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review my edits

Hello - I'm getting a bit frustrated with editors blanket reverting me and templating me as a vandal for removing original research and guesswork from the Doctor (Doctor Who) article. Can people check my edits and if they have SPECIFIC objections to my removal of material - can they tell me a) why it is not currently original research/guesswork and b) what source supports the statements I have removed. Just blanking reverting me on the basis that "people have worked hard" is not useful and has no bearing on the application of policy. --87.112.82.25 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If an IP tried to add the stuff that he removed, an editor would remove it in a second. Are there different rules for what members add? 86.160.163.222 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Threatening template

You may have seen the new {{WIKICRUFTWARN}} at the top of our page; the template is up for deletion and see this for an admins' discussion of the WikiProject's inappropriateness (not our project, the one that placed the template). Just so you all know... —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Removed the Template. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why Fair Use is important

I noticed this story recently, in which the BBC sent a website which featured knitting patterns for Doctor Who creatures a demand to remove any Who-related content. While the case is interesting in its own right, I think we should probably take this as a warning that we need to be careful ourselves, particularly when it comes to Fair Use images. The argument that it's unlikely the BBC would ever sue over something like this has lost a lot of weight. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you imagine the outcry if the BBC sued Wikipedia? :-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. I'm hoping they'll learn their lesson from this case and we'll never reach that point, but you never know. I still doubt there's any real threat, but it's certainly better to err on the side of caution (which is, of course, what the fair use criteria are set up to do). --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image at Last of the Time Lords under attack

Hello to the members of the project. User:Fasach Nua is removing the picture from the infobox for this story. First it was claimed that it did not meet point 8 of the nfc. After pointing out that it is referred to in the text of the plot it was removed again claiming that it did not meet point 1 and 8. The hidden note directing editors to look fo the rational on the picture page is also being blanked and it does not look like this editor even read it. Maybe we will lose this pic as we have lost so many others but I am posting this here so that if any of you know how to rescue the photo that you will be able to do so. Thanks, in advance, for any help that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could revert Fasach's edit-warring, point to WP:BRD, state that it is not a 3RR exception as it's not a "clear" case since there's widespread disparity of opinion, and suggest that the issue is discussed at fair-use review. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Fasach knows full well not to edit war. He sent the image to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2‎ after I reverted him again. — Edokter • Talk • 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Silence image up for deletion: here. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't mind the images myself, to be completely fair, those two images aren't that important from the POV of the new policy. DonQuixote (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood logo

I was directed to this Image:IBM_logo.svg, the licencing rationale may also apply to Image:Torchwoodtitle.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis issues

There appears to be a lot of synthesis and cruft occurring in the "continuity sections" of many of the Doctor Who episode articles. Unless we can cite this information, and provide for why it is not trivial cruft, I am thinking we might have to scrub some of the articles within this Wikiproject. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, sorry, the talkpage consensus is very clear. You are being over-sensitive - the material you're talking about (here) is not original research or synthesis. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 09:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne could you list some of the articles you are concerned about, the consensus of the talk page is probably based on a small sample of editors, and is over-ruled by the WP:CONSENSUS, and the project consensus is WP:PROVEIT Fasach Nua (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic case of idiotic behaviour from wikipedians who will bring down wiki whether they mean to or not. One lot of idiots says you can't have programmes on episodes without out of universe info, and the other lot of idiots says all such info is trivia. Keep going like this and there won't be any articles on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.185.86 (talk • contribs)

Not necessarily a bad thing... ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 08:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all very conversational and quite beside the point. I'll try this again:

Fasach Nua, some of the articles are as follows, though i am sure that many of them (rebooted series) are infested with the same fancrufty, trivial and synthesis issues: Silence in the Library, Forest of the Dead, and Midnight are articles where I have noticed die-hard fans arguing that the bits are of interest. If they are not vital to the series, are not citably connected and accessible to the novice reader, they are not of notable use in an encyclopedia. Most of the suspect material is (conveniently) quarantined within the Continuity sub-sections of the plot synopsis. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sound of Drums

The article for The Sound of Drums was recently locked from editing because of an ongoing edit war regarding dating the episode. There is currently an arguement ongoing at Talk:The Sound of Drums#President-Elect, which I feel the project should be made aware of, and should voice their opinion on.

The topic relates mostly to a debate over whether or not someone can attempt to use logic to estimate the date of an episode based on the term President-elect, or if this violates the Original Research policy of Wikipedia because it lacks references. The359 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor River Song should be added as a companion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion has been moved here, please continue it there. - LA @ 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

---

True, she hasn't officially traveled with the Doctor yet, but we learn in Silence in the Library & Forest of the Dead that she will become a companion. She will travel with him, have adventures, and eventually get his future sonic screwdriver. And maybe even be romantic. And she sacrifices her life to save 4022 people, Donna, and the Doctor. I think this earned her companion status, regardless of the fact she hasn't stepped inside a TARDIS onscreen...... YET. She had 2 episodes of adventures with him before she died, and countless adventures to come. (The life of a Time Traveler I suppose!)

At the risk of a WP:SPADE-type statement, we don't have a crystal ball. If and when she becomes a companion, that would be the time we mark Song as such. Not a single moment beforehand. This is an encyclopedia; we are not and should not consider it anywhere in the zip code of importance to be the first with the info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

True. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. Which is a pretty unique situation, but I digress. Also, River never actually mentions travelling with the Doctor, other than just going somewhere for a visit and then returning home. As far as the chronology of Doctor Who (and the Doctor himself) goes, she is not a companion. Besides, time is not fixed. It's made of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff and can CHANGE. So her adventures with the Doctor may not happen. U-Mos (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

She is absolutely a companion - in the Doctor's future. Agreed that this is without precedent, but it's clear that she is incredibly significant. She mentions several destinations from her diary ("Have we done Asgard yet), and at least one specific trip with the Doctor (Singing Towers), but also indicates a familiarity with the TARDIS that indicates that she has traveled in it frequently.

Also, in Doctor Who Confidential, Steven Moffatt says ""The squareness gun ended up in the Tardis ... It's the same squareness gun, it's Captain Jack's older one, pilfered from the Tardis locker by River Song" and director Euros Lyn says "Here's a woman who travels with the Doctor, therefore she knows him."

So, how is she NOT a "companion?" (A similar discussion is taking place at the "Companion" article. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 01:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When she becomes a companion, then we can add her. Not before. Something to consider: Tennant is rumored to be leaving the series at the end of the year, which means that Song's memories of this Doctor (as the same man but older) might very well render the episodes she appeared in as anachronistic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How are you defining "when" someone "becomes a companion"? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 02:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When she travels with the Doctor during the canon of the Doctor's (and therefore the viewer's) personal timeline, or fills the role of such a character in a given episode. Anything could change for River, outside or in the programme. Alex Kingston could fall under a bus tomorrow, we simply do not know. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. U-Mos (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While I personally and professionally cringe at the usage of the term canon in this encyclopedia (what fans think is legitimate or not is of absolutely no consequence here), I think that U-Mos has otherwise succinctly pointed out that WP:CRYSTAL is on point here as a stumbling block for inclusion. I dig what you are saying about the unprecedented possibility of the relationship between her and the Doctor, but consider that we don't know the extent or even actual definition of that relationship. She could be his wife, or his child, or his granddaughter. We already know that he has a clone-daughter out there. Lots of changes are occurring. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if something changes, so can the article(s). But let's talk about what we know now, based on the information we already have. And by that standard, based on the definition of "companion" that we have here in (Companion (Doctor Who)), then River Song fits the requirements. If something changes to that later, we can always change it. Isn't that how we do things here? —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(←dent, for sanity's sake, and great justice) Sure it does. Open up a new section asking for clarification/definition as to how the wikiproject is going to define companions, as this conversation has pretty much concluded with the knowledge that we are adding no Song before her time (w/ apologies to both Paul Masson wines and Orson Welles). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The term is defined already. In the Companion (Doctor Who) article. If you want to suggest changes to the definition described there, have at it. In the meantime, she completely fits that definition. And this discussion has not concluded simply because you and one other editor share the same position. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, tiger. Maybe relax a little bit. I didn't realize you wanted to debate the point some more. Please, have at it. I would ask, after having perused the Companion article, how, precisely, Professor Song fulfills the definition of Companion. I was under the impression that in order to fit that particular title, one had to at least step foot in the TARDIS. As Song has not, she is not. Temporal verb forms aside, when she does, we can. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Consolidate the debate

To keep this discussion sane, I suggest that this be discussed in one place. There is a rather lengthy discussion on Companion. That way everyone's opinion would be on the same page. - LA @ 06:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll move that debate over to here. For the past few days, it's just been Shadang and myself.

My main contention is that labeling River as a future companion is as valid as labeling her a future recurring character (or future anything else for that matter) at this point. The producers haven't said anything concrete, so either one is mere speculation. DonQuixote (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, as a WkikPedia user (abandoning all my DW leanings), this appears to be a bog-standard WP:CRYSTAL (as in, we haven't seen her yet, so can't name her as companion) versus WP:OR (as in, saying that she is some super-villianess has no evidence) debate. Applying Occam's Razor, it would seem that the simplest option is that she is a companion; however, the same application says that the simplest option for us is not list her as a companion, but with a note explaining the dubiousness of her position. From this, I would say that we leave the argument alone, at least until the end of series 4 (just in case she makes a reappearence), without listing her as a companion - Weebiloobil (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make a couple things clear - there's a difference between defining River as a "companion" in respect to the fictional "future" and, as DonQuixote puts it, "labeling her a future recurring character". In other words, what I'm talking about is the already-established "future" within the realm of the story, not "future episodes." That distinction is important, because we can't speculate about what will happen, or who will appear in future episodes. But since this is a time-travel oriented series, we cross different characters within different timeframes, and sometimes in different order, and there's every reason that we can use the info we have to make notes in the articles. And that's what we do.

The other thing, is to be sure we agree what constitutes a "companion" before we participate in a discussion about whether a character qualifies or not. As far as I can see, the authoritative source is the Companion (Doctor Who) article - if everyone here doesn't agree with the way it's defined there, then we don't even need to have this discussion. But I stand by my contention that River Song completely qualifies under the definition there. I'm not going to repeat all of the "evidence" for that here... if you're interested, check out the earlier discussion: Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#River Song. —Shübop "Shadang" Âlang 05:54, 21 June 2008 (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.

Template:TardisIndexFile

This template associates the image of the TARDIS, a trademark of the BBC with a non BBC affiliated commercial site. I think there are legal issues with the use of this template as it stands. I would be interested in any views on the use of the Image:TARDIS-trans.png in this context Fasach Nua (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just like the Who stub-notice, it's a symbol of the program. I'd say that common sense/WP:IAR makes it fine. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 10:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not like the stub notice, these articles are quite clearly wikipedia articles, not BBC articles. It is not obvious to the average reader that the Tardis Index files are not connected to the BBC. WP:COMMON is an essay and therefore irrelevant, WP:IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", I dont think the use of this trademark improves WP, but I don't know if there is a rule preclding it's use. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While the long-time "essays are crap" excuse is age-old, it's not very good. Are you saying that you think we shouldn't use our own common sense when using Wikipedia? If not, then WP:COMMON is valid. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What I want to know is what are people's general opinions on using a BBC trademark to advertise a non-BBC enterprise here on wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Logos#U.S._trademark_law would seem to preclude it's use here Fasach Nua (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Long discussion have been had over this... Bottom line is: Trademark has nothing to do with copyright, and while the TARDIS is trademarked, it is inelligable for copyright (not an original design). Also, trademarks are not considered under NFCC, as trademark law explicitly allows the use of logo's for identification, as long as it is not used for marketing similair products. And since Wikipedia does not sell any Doctor Who related goods or services, we're good. — Edokter • Talk • 13:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct this is outside nfcc, I would however disagree with your statment "as long as it is not used for marketing similair products", I would hardly think IBM would standby and allow Dell to put IBM's trademar on their products, yet we are putting the BBC's logo on the index files Fasach Nua (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think the NFCC point is key. It's fine within established Wikipedia policies, and it's not our job to try to take other legal decisions on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation. It could be legal, it could not, but they employ lawyers who deal with the fine-print. We're only bound by the NFCC - there's no trademark policy so from our point of view, it's fine.

If you're concerned, you could mail the Foundation's lawyer, since it's essentially his/her issue. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course IBM wouldn't allow Dell to use it's logo; they sell computers too! That would be trademark infringment. Wikipedia's use of logos isn't. In fact, many logos can be found on Commons for that reason. — Edokter • Talk • 14:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why isnt WP use of this logo in this manor a trademark infringement, tardis index files runs a website about Dr Who, BBC runs a website about Dr Who. Yet we associate the BBC's trademark with the tardis index files. Would it be acceptable to use, the BBC logo which is out of copyright, but is trademarked, just as the TARDIS photo is.

BBC

The TARDIS Index File has information related to:

WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 19

Because Wikipedia or Wikia do not sell any Doctor Who related items. — Edokter • Talk • 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fasach, did you see my comment above, dated 13:53? I genuinely don't think this is our issue; while you may have a point about it being illegal, or you may not, it doesn't affect us. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped a line at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(trademarks)#Uncopyrighted Fasach Nua (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fasach, did you see my comment above, dated 13:53? You've ignored me, which is rude. You've ignored the point of the comment, which is foolish. Please engage in discussion with multiple editors, not just one. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

yes I saw your comment, I have read it three times, once when you wrote it, then when you pointed it, and then when you pointed it out again. I see nothing rude or foolish in my actions, you will have to expand on your comments Fasach Nua (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is rude and foolish to ignore a useful comment; if you feel it's not useful then it's polite to explain your feeling. Generally, it's polite to acknowledge that you've seen it. Now I'm asking you, why do you feel it is unimportant? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to expect to have every comment acknowledged in a short thread such as this one, with only a few editors, you can assume that both Edokter and myself will have read your comments. I think your suggestion was premature, I think a bit of community input would be useful before running off to the legal team Fasach Nua (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The Foundation does not intervene in every content discussion, or set policy for every Wikimedia project. It is up to us at English Wikipedia to do that for ourselves, to protect our project. As for the specific issue, the trademark grant seems to include Class 41, which on the face of it, includes educational and entertainment services like the TARDIS Index File. The trademark makes the image non-free for our purposes, (see {{Non-free trademark}}), and I don't think the BBC's fan site policy extends to using its trademarks for promotional purposes. If we promote the tardis index file, we should do so without using the trademark. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"This template associates the image of the TARDIS, a trademark of the BBC with a non BBC affiliated commercial site" - it couln't possibly be a Tardis because it's caklled the TARDIS index file? 129.215.149.97 (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Tardis index files are responsible for their own actions, and WP is responsible for it's own. How they govern their own use of copyrighted images and other people's trademarks is a matter for them, and how WP deals with it is a matter for WP Fasach Nua (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that trademarked-but-not-copyrighted files can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, it's res ipsa loquitur proof that such images are free for Wikipedia purposes. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be very suprised if the IBM or Microsoft logos would be licenced under GFDL, care to prove your assertion and use them for commercial purposes? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IBM and Microsoft logos are in the public domain. While they can claim copyright, I doubt they'd be able to win a court case for copyright infringement. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Sceptre, I think Commons typically tags trademarks with commons:Template:Trademarked (though this has not yet been done for the images in question). The tag looks like this:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. See our general disclaimer. {{trademarked/lang}}

I don't think that gives us blanket freedoms at English Wikipedia. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect Commons intended to regulate Trade marks which might come about inadvertently, such as Image:Tesco1.jpg, Will's argument could fall into WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the use of uncopyrighted trademarks is very poorly documented! I feel uneasy about using a BBC trademark to advertise a commerical site making money off the back of Dr. Who Fasach Nua (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You needn't feel uneasy, you personally are not to blame. As I said before, the Wikimedia Foundation makes such decisions. If they are happy with the presence of trademarked material - and they must know it exists, and the various uses it could be put to - then that's fine. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The foundation doesn't make content decisions, it sets strategy and direction, and buys servers. In fact the foundation has some legal immunity as a non-publisher. The English Wikipedia community makes the decisions.

In response to Fasach Nua, I don't know about trademarks that come about inadvertently, but someone pointed out in a related discussion that the IBM logotype was deliberately uploaded to Commons; that is tagged with commons:Template:Trademarked (as should the Police Box images be), because the IBM logotype is probably not copyrighted in U.S. law, yet it is trademarked. Just because the police boxes have survived at Commons for a while, doesn't mean we should not do the right thing and remove it from Template:TardisIndexFile.

Which brings me to the related discussion we will probably all be interested in, at:

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#non-copyrighted materials

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuity sections

I've made a bold edit and removed the bit about how sections should contain continuity sections. The idea behind this deletion is that a majority of televisions series (in the American-en sense of that word) do not allow for these, and uniformity is a good thing in an encyclopedia. For the same reason, we don't have purty colors for the infoboxes and whatnot. As well, these continuity sections create a number of problems, not the least of them is to serve as a magnet for crufty trivia, non-notable items and (debatably) synthesized information.

I think that the info contained in these sections would be better integrated into other parts of the article, including (the yet-to-be-created) productions sections. This new section would allow us to keep the information being added from falling into an in-universe trap, and move our focus to the crafting of the episode by the writers, directors, producers, etc, and allow for their relative brilliance (or ineptitude) to shine through. For example, in the 4th season episode (10th doctor), Silence in the Library, there is seen in the background drawings of what resemlbes crayon drawings of Rose Tyler and Bad Wolf. Now, the inclusion of these items was seen (rightly) as OR, but it was clearly intended to be in the shot. What it means is something that should be detailed, via citable references, to a production section. Other items currently in the continuity section for that episode include notes about how the Doctor "likes a little shop" or how psychic paper has served to receive 'distress calls' in the past. As it stands, the items are at best crufty, non-notable trivia. More fully explained, however, would remove these problems.

Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Per the allowed difference between British and US wikipedia entries (dates, spelling etc) there is no reason to remove them just because they are not on US TV episode pages. Having said that they could be improved to cut back on the fancruft. I think that could be done and retain the title of the section, but, it could also be done without that title. It needs to be noted that it was wrong of you to remove the item from the MoS on the projects main page until the discussion here is concluded. I am not faulting you on being bold but MoS alterations are different then regular article changes and I feel that it should be restored for the time being (please note that this is not a demand). MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Magnetism to OR doesn't make the sections automatically bad, as we saw from what happened when IPC sections were removed with a thick brush. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Marnette: I was following the WP:BRD model of consensus-building, though I understand how deleting MoS stuff could be bad if it were done irresponsibly, without discussion and without basis. I believe I have side-stepped that issue by opening a discussion on the topic. As well, I would point out that the 'allowed differences' between UK and US articles don't appear to extend to special sections for one or the other. I think that by calling the section "continuity", we are interpreting what is continuous. As well, by looking at it from that angle, our editorial feet are firmly planted in-universe. They should not remain there. By integrating that material which can into other sections, we allow for the remaining to be removed for the trivia, cruft and synthesis. That info which doesn't fit the aforementioned definitions should be integrated into a section which discusses how it was developed - maybe the section could be called production or development. It isn't as if there is an absence of production and development info, what with the Dr. Who Confidential after every episode. It is a fantastic resource, and editors should avail themselves of it to develop out those bits of 'continuity' for what they really are: production notes and development segues.

Sceptre: No, attracting cruft isn't automatically bad, but efforts to make it less such are always to be applauded. As well, from your initial revert of the MoS edit, it is indeed true that precisely two episode articles of Doctor Who are currently FA-status. That is to say, two out of over seven-hundred and fifty episodes. I imagine that a number larger than two exists for GA-status articles, but I think the point is made. FA and GA articles are continually being improved, much like their lesser counterparts. This proposal is a good thing, and would bring the articles - all of the Doctor Who articles into line with the rest of the encyclopedia, including those from the television programs of many different countries. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's only 200 or so episode articles - #200 airs on Saturday (pre-05 is done by serial). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; 200 episode articles created (of 750 episodes produced), and two of them are FA. I am not sure the point is rendered moot by the clarification, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this proposal. Continuity sections are extremely useful for seeing an episode's lasting impression on the show, or even just the way writer's back-reference other episodes. People may not want to read a whole plot synopsis (they may have just watched the episode), but would still be interested in the nods to previous episodes that they have missed (or thought they recognised from before). I'd go so far to say this is probably the most useful (and most read) section in such episode articles. Of course there are good continuity points and bad continuity points, but a comprehensive list of strong points is an essential part of the article. And I don't believe it is trivia, providing it is kept relatively succinct. Trivia consists of random points that fit nowhere else, this is a section in its own right and does not take anything and everything. Trivia would be the continuity, broadcast and production sections conflated and put into bullet points. Which of course would be a disaster. Many other views (including mine and Arcayne's) on this can be seen in sections 21-25 of Talk:Silence in the Library. U-Mos (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I find a number of problems with this disagreement. To begin with, arguing that people might not want to read the plot synopsis, instead preferring the continuity section is, I suspect, an argument that would only be raised by a fan, as only a fan would be specifically interested in tidbits brought over from previous episodes. The very language:

"but would still be interested in the nods to previous episodes that they have missed (or thought they recognised from before). I'd go so far to say this is probably the most useful (and most read) section in such episode articles"

heavily suggests that the point of view of the poster is that of a fan. We do not write Wikipedia articles with special emphasis or trivia bits for fans. Our articles are for our entire audience, which often includes the uninitiated. Advocating a special section is tantamount to giving a nod to the Docotor Who fanbase. That violates our neutrality, as we are giving more to these articles than we are with other articles. Lost doesn't have continuity sections. Neither does Heroes or Star Trek.

The very nature of continuity sections make them attractive landing points for fancruft, triva and speculation. While on their face, an advocate might point to bits of continuity as being essential to the article, and that would be reasonable, were they actually woven into production or development sections. Concentrating them together is usually done at the expense of good writing (avoiding in-universe pov is good writing).

In response to the arguments against triviality, allow me to point to one such instance (though many, many remain through out the Who articles). In the article Forest of the Dead, one editor opted to revert in a number of points of continuity, including the pretty trivial note about the re-usage of Companion Donna Noble's wedding dress in the episode, noting its previous usage in the "The Runaway Bride" episode. While it is cited as being the same dress, the overriding question is (and always should be) 'so what?' The dress was seen for a few moments in this episode, and featured not one whit towards the content of the episode. Not being notable or especially useful in understanding the subject of the article renders the info trivial. It has since been removed, but without direction from here, these sorts of things will continue in abeyance of our policies and guidelines. Trivia is not just a collection of bullet-pointed comparisons; the definition of trivia also encompasses non-notable items (no matter how they are presented).

The applications of speculation and synthesis always seem to make their ways into these articles. In the aforementioned article, Forest of the Dead, attention is noted in the continuity sections to very slim connections to prior episodes, such as similarities (yes, that word was actually used - and reverted back in) between Companions as well as notations of crayola'd pictures of a blonde woman and previous statements, often taken completely out of context. This is the very definition of synthesis - the contributor adding this stuff in is advances a position - that the in-universe of Doctor Who is a completely cogent and uniform one, and that all of the episodes interlink with remarkable efficiency. This may be accurate (though I don't believe so), but the contributor's intent is to send that message, and the intent itself is synthesis, in that the person, using their own prior knowledge of episodes, is pointing to connections that aren't being made by citable sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I resent being referred to as "one editor". I reverted this because, quite frankly, it goes against nothing. It even has sources. It would greatly help all of us if you could refrain from making these controversial edits until this discussion is finished. You do not have an authority over the articles, so if you want them removed you should start a discussion yourself. Which you have, but you went ahead and positively encouraged an edit war in addition. Now, to address some of your above points. I can't speak for Lost or Star Trek, but Heroes certainly does not suit continuity sections. There would simply be little to nothing to say. If there was a continuity point in a Heroes episode, I don't believe many people would begrudge a section being created. The article is not designed for fans (the "uninitiated" could happily read the plot, or be interested in where it was fimed or the ratings etc), but that doesn't mean there should be nothing of interest to them in there. Your other points I believe have been responded to above, as well as anywhere and everywhere over the last few days. If I've missed anything, do tell and I'll respond to it forthwith. Other than that we seem to be stuck in a loop, so it may be best we both shut up and let other people voice their views on this. U-Mos (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any and all efforts to outlaw continuity sections, which serve as an INTERESTING (and that's the point of an encyclopedia) means for readers to notice bits of the episode they never had before; fun backlinks and witty references. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I submit that we aren't "outlawing" continuity sections, any more than we would suggest such with trivia sections. What is being suggested is that neither serve a truly useful purpose aside from serving as a grab bag for items that could and should be better placed in other areas. As well, it deserves to be pointed out that readers might not have seen the episodes in question or may not find the backlinks fun or the dubious references witty. The point of an encyclopedia is indeed to be interesting and fun, but more importantly, it needs to be uniform. Jesus Christ and Lily Tomlin and Adolph Hitler all get the same level of coverage, and you will note that their articles tend to resemble one another in terms of format. Doctor Who articles should not receive any more leeway that that given Lost, Star Trek, Lost in Space or Friends. Continuity sections are a method of the fan editor to pat himself on the back and say 'golly, I've watched so many episodes of Doctor Who that I've noted how someone saying 'I'm sorry, I'm so, so sorry' seems to keep coming up'. Again with respect, that isn't interesting, fun or witty - it's what we call original research and trivial - they just aren't that important to the understanding of the subject of the article. Prove to me how knowing the re-use of a wedding dress or that a squareness gun's titling is vital to the understanding of an episode; we aren't writing articles willy-nilly here. We write them to be concise overviews of a subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

(This is rolling in concerns on a number of individual articles) I think a big part of WP:SYN is being overlooked. It is entirely concerned with improper synthesis. We don't have a concern with WP:OR either, as we have a source- the episode, movie, etc. itself. This is, by definition, a synthesis of what is in the episodes, but it's not contrary to guidelines if it's accurate (e.g., if the text says someone said something, this can and should be verified by watching the episode). Wikipedia's concerns over uniformity, as raised above, tend to be decided by Wikiprojects. The fact that the article on Hitler is of a different format is due to it's difference of subject. Something appearing to be of no use is completely subjective- there's no way for an editor to determine what the reading public will find useful, and it's for that reason that we shouldn't attempt to rule text out as "useless". See WP:NNC.

If you look at WP:TRIVIA, it deals with the Manner of Style. Presenting this information in a list would be a nightmare; as it is, it's in prose and presented as a subsection of the plot section, which I would call quite well integrated. Additionally, WP:TRIVIA raises a concern with a list of unconnected facts, as many have become. The continuity section is quite limited in scope. Notice this wording:

“ ...these lists may become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table. ”

Hope this helps. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a little comment, there is a slow progression of rewriting lists as well-written sections. Although, admittedly, some of it is really, really slow (200+ serial/episode articles). As they are now, they can be thought of as notes or outlines to potentially well-written sections (or in some cases, first-drafts). Of course, copyediting helps too. Work in progress. DonQuixote (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found that moving trivial bits to the discussion page works wonder at separating the cruft from the usable stuff, as people don't try to re-work in the non-notable or trivial bits, instead concentrating on those parts which can be salvaged. It has the added advantage of keeping the cruft away from the reader, providing them with only the leaner article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tardis index files

On seperate issue from the trademark issue, why are we even linking this site? It is a site with significantly inferior quality info than WP, provides little new information, it presents a liability to the English language WP, as it directs readers to access materials which copyrighted and not viable as fair use, and looking at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, it fails 1 and 12. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for content hosted on other sites. The content on tardis.wikia.com is offered under a free licence, and how they choose to implement their fair use policy is entirely their own responsibility, not ours. Wikipedia's policies only prohibit linking patent copyright infringements (ie. YouTube videos). — Edokter • Talk • 13:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I will accept that point is debateable, and on the balance of probabilities, you are most likely correct. The index files are a significantly inferior site to WP, and in the majority of cases it is an old version of the WP page with poor images, so what are the readers gaining from the link? Fasach Nua (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More information; most readers aren't bothered about verifiability! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

They may not be gaining much now, but since there soon won't be any Doctor Who articles on this wiki, they soon will be. With one lot of people demanding episode articles have references to other stories, and another group calling all such material trivia, it won't take too long. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass-nomination of Torchwood images

We have a mass-nomination at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 11#Image:Torchwood ep 1 Eve Myles.jpg. — Edokter • Talk • 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To my reckoning, the vast number of them are correctly being nominated for deletion, as they fail fair-use criteria. Some are pretty useful, though, and I've noted my disagreement on those I think are more useful than not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually isn't War on Skaro..

It's "The Stolen Earth"; see [3]. It's a bit of a pain to add refs at school, so... Sceptre ^(talk) 12:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles still stubs?

I've noticed that some episode articles such as The Sontaran Stratagem and The Poison Sky are still down as stubs. Are they really still stubs? 86.154.185.86 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC) - Just to clarify - I'm taliking about the note on the talk page 86.154.185.86 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

After series 4 has finished, I will go through and reassess the new articles - I have done "Forest of the Dead" alredy - Weebiloobil (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists

We now have some confusion over which comes first in the cast lists. Originally (and yes I got this wrong in my edit summary on the project page) we listed role and then actor. As near as I can tell when the process of moving them into the infobox, at least as far as the new series is concerned, it began it looks like the this was reversed. We need to come to a consensus on how we want them now before any edit wars break out. So please add your thoughts below. Now, this is not that big of a deal and I am okay with listing them either way but I hope that we can come to a quick decision so that I can begin fixing them one way or the other. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actor first

• Support This reflects what is seen onscreen during the closing credits. Adhereing to the onscreen credits was once a tenant (not David) that we strove for, although I admit that I don't remember whether it was ever written into our MoS. MarnetteD | Talk 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support This just looks more logical when presented in the infobox, and follows actual screen credits. — Edokter • Talk • 10:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support With cast in the infobox, it just makes more sense. Plus it matches the Doctor/Companion bit. U-Mos (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Partial Support - list only the actors, and not the characters they portray. Sidestep the in-universe leanings of the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

**Comment: I am sorry to be rude but this is absurd. What use is a list of actors without listing what role they played. Listing them this way would give no context to their appearance in the show and would provide no information of use to an out of universe reader. Often readers come to Wikipedia or other sites because they see an actor whose face they recognize but they cannot remember their name. In this day and age of squashed, unreadable credits they will come here with the character name "Neeva" hoping to find out who played him/her. Your suggestion would leave them without an answer, thus, driving them away from wikipedia to some other website to find the info they want. Not a good idea in my opnion. MarnetteD | Talk 23:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) This comment was made do to my lack of understanding over whether we are going to have a complete cast listing or not. That discussion has moved to the thread below so this is no longer applies. Unless we decide that we are not going to have a complete cast listing somewhere in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 06:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above, which address your concern. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Should cast lists be in the infobox or elsewhere

Please note: I started the above thread to try and nail down which comes first in our listings - actor or role - so we can apply that to all of the classic and new series pages. The conversation has morphed into one regarding where the cast lists should be. Now as I remember it the members of the project discussed what to do regarding the cast lists pretty thoroughly several months ago and came to a consensus to do them the way that it is being done now.

Since Arcayne wants to reopen that discussion I have taken the liberty of moving the parts of the conversation regarding this that were in the above thread into this new one. Please feel free to add your comments below. MarnetteD | Talk 06:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I look at FA and GA articles of other television programs (concentrating on episodic series), I find that a lot of them list the stars and guest stars for the episode in the infobox (with wikilinkage), and detail the cast in the text of the article listing the character first (with wikilink, if necessary) and then the actor in parentheses afterwards (already wikilinked). This seems to be a cleaner way to do it, and it has the benefit of the broader consensus of the wiki community.

So, listing just the actors in the infobox, yes. Listing the characters there as well, nope. The best place for character names is in the body of the text. It has the side benefit of avoiding in-universe presentation of fictional characters as real people - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the way that we used to have them and, in spite of several edit summaries to the contrary, most of the original series pages still list them this way. See The Face of Evil for an example. Then, we were told that the only way to qualify for GA and FA status was to move them into the infobox and now you are saying the opposite. I hope that somone can clear this confusing situation up! In the long run I am not sure what GA and FA status means other than to protect an article from the talons of TTN and Eusebius. Now, this is not a bad thing, but, as I have noted in other contexts, it seems that GA and FA is decided by a small amount of editors - four in the case of one article - so what difference does it make where we have them since so few need to be convinced to vote for a given status? We can always change them to satisfy the whims of need. MarnetteD | Talk 23:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I've already addressed the baiting of both Eusebius and TTN on your talk page, I thought it prudent to point out that snipes at other users aren't going to garner anything approaching cooperation. Working politely together is the only way to proceed in the face of dissent, as the alternative is rife with blocks, admin oversight and dispute-locking of articles.

Moving on, the article you point to is not even a GA-quality article, and is considered a start-class of mid-importance - perhaps not the best example to be using here (though, as you worked on it a bit, I can see why it came to mind). Note that my "opposite" suggestions merely utilizes current FA and GA articles as guides with which to improve this and other (non-GA and -FA) articles. While format does indeed change over time, it is not via whimsy but in accordance with what works for the majority of articles. I am sorry you are perceiving this as a contradiction. I am not at all suggesting at all (as you intimate I am) that we do not pair up the actors with their roles. If you read carefully what I suggested, I proposed that we list only the actors in the infobox, and use the body of the article to link the actors with their roles, so as to avoid in-universe considerations. If I was unclear about that, please accept my apology. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not list TFoE to give an example of a GA or FA. I linked it to show how we used to note the cast lists before the decision that moved them into infoboxes. Next, my apologies as I did misread some of what you typed above. If I have read it correctly now I think that you are saying that we should list the actor (using "The Sontaran Stratagem" as an example) Ryan Sampson in the infobox. Then wait and list his character name "Luke Ratigan" in the the plot section, or some other part of the article. Well, that is one way to do it and if the project agrees on that then okay. However, using the example that I gave below the way that we have it now the reader only has to scan the infobox to find what actor played what character. The way that you suggest doing it they have to read through the entire plot section to find this info. This can be tedious if the character does not show up until late in the episode. Worse if a given character does not get mentioned in the plot they might not be able to find the info at all. Again using "TSS" only four of the eleven people in the guest cast are mentioned in the plot section. The way you suggest would leave seven actors names unconnected to the characters that they play. Rather then shoehorn that info into the text of the article it is easily taken care of in the cast list as is. This just my opinion. If the project decides to do it this way then I will be happy to get to work making the alterations. MarnetteD | Talk 00:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Sontaran Stratagem was the very opposite of what I was thinking, MarnetteD. I don't think we should be adding fictional characters to the infobox at all. I was proposing that we list the primary players of the episode (and if they don't get mentioned in the plot, it begs the question as to what notability caused them to be listed in the infobox in the first place), and list the actors in parentheses after the character they portray in the plot, or in the casting section. I disagree utterly that this is tedious; we aren't here to spoon-feed the reader (any more than we are here to chew their food for them via synthesis). By presenting the info within the body of the plot or casting section, we are compacting that info alongside the character they portray, and keeping the wacky in-universe consideration out of the infobox. I hope that explains my position a lot clearer, but please feel free to ask for more clarification if I missed something. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you misread what I typed so thoroughly. I said exactly what you just repeated, that you want the actor (and only the actor) in the info box and the character name in the text of the article with the actor listed in parentheses next to that name - sheesh. Now, since you misunderstood that let me check on the following. You are saying that we should list the actors, guest or otherwise, at least three times. Once in the infobox without character names (does this mean that we go through and remove the Doctor and the companions name too?) Then a second time in the plot section with the character name and the actor name in parentheses. Then a third time in a comprehensive cast list, actor and character, after the plot section (the way that we used to list them.) If that is what you are suggesting that is one way to make it work. The only problem I forsee is who decides who is important enough to be in the infobox. Who gets included and who doesn't is POV any way you look at it (much like the old notable roles field in the actor infoboxes was) and the potential for edit wars over it will always be on the horizon. MarnetteD | Talk 06:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look as if I misunderstood you, MarnetteD; you referred to the infobox part of the Sontaran Stratagem as an example - I missed that bit.

In answer to your further request for clarification, allow me to bullet-point what I am suggesting:

• Actors in the infobox only (no character connection). The question has been raised as to how we decide what actors go there. For that, I think we could look at the many episode guides to help us determine who others thought were notable enough for mention; much like what is done in film articles (they often refer to the film's website and sources like Imdb). Using those sources alleviates us from having to decide who gets noted and who doesn't.

I'm of two minds about listing Tennant and Noble in each and every episode article, but I am leaning towards the affirmative, as each episode has to exist on its own, without the benefit of other episodic articles to support it (enhance, yes - support, no).

• I don't think we have to (or should, for that matter) list the names of the actors three different times. If there is a cast section, then that's where we can do it. Failing that, we can integrate the names into the plot summary (such as can be seen in the FA-quality article, The Beginning of the End n episode of Lost. One will note that the infobox in that article lists the actors but not the characters they portray. It is a pretty darn, good article, in my opinion, and the DH articles could benefit from emulating it. Compare the tightness of the writing style, the conciseness and brevity of that article with the FA-standard DH article, Partners in Crime. There is no continuity section, and all of the points of prior reference are integrated into the sections Plot, Production and Reception. In some cases, the bits of continuity are dispensed with altogether, or added in prose form to the main article (Lost). Its a world of difference. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the complete cast-list, including character names, should be in the infobox. It is simply much neater and more concise to do this. If only actors were in the infobox, there would have to be a cast section and this would lead to unnecessarily repeated information. U-Mos (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for all of the pretty solid reasons mentioned above. It isn't redundant, U-Mos. We are purging the article of unnecessary in-universe writing. By adopting a more observational point of view, we create a better article. By note treating fictional characters as real people (which adding them to infoboxes serves to so by giving them equal if not better footing with actors), it is a step inthe wrong direction There are numerous examples for episodic television, FA-, GA-level and otherwise that correctly avoid in-universe considerations and leave the characters out of the infobox. Why should Doctor Who articles be exempt from the same rules that all others follow? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I also feel very little for breaking up the cast list between the infobox and a cast section; that would simply duplicate the information instead of having it in one convenient place. GA/FA has very little to do with it either; both formats have FAs. — Edokter • Talk • 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are examples of both in FA- and GA- articles, but you can also note that the cast-only infobox is overwhelmingly the more consistently used. Convenience is nifty, but not when it turns the Wikipedia into a fansite. I've noted very real examples wherein the cast is incorporated into the text of the article smoothly without bulking up the article and definitely without the appearance of redundancy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because one format is used more often does not make it mandatory. In fact, it may well be other project may adapt our infobox format. Infoboxes exist to contain the 'repetative' information in list form that does not do well in prose, so putting the cast in the infobox makes perfect sense. And just listing the actors doesn't give any information is they cannot be linked to the characters they protray. — Edokter • Talk • 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The argument arguing that the Project may adapt ours is a bit too optimistic, much like the flea with a hard on floating down the river, demanding that they raise the drawbridge because he is coming through. That one format is used more than another is the result of a wide consensus throughout the community. They don't change to suit us; we alter to comply with it. A certain amount of redundancy between infobox and article is to be expected, as the infobox is essentially the article broken down into main facts. Actors play characters. The actors are important, the characters, not so much. The actors are being linked to the characters in articles in the majority of the articles that we use as the finest examples of our encyclopedia. It needs to follow that.

If we are at the point where we need some independent eyes on this, please let me know. I feel like I am pointing out the way things are, and you are advocating a change (and I'll reiterated that this article/project isn't the place for it). Perhaps we need independent, neutral folk to weigh in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have the follow the rest. Like I said; just because other projects use a different format, does not make it the best format. A change always start in one place. And just like the other crew that have there role defined in the infobox, actors should have the same relation to their role defined. Listing only the actors in the infobox and putting a cast list in the article is redundant; that was one of the initial reasons to make the change in the first place, which has gained consensus within this project. It is all about organizing the information without repeating itself. If you want change it; argue on why it should change and how the articles benefit from it; don't just say it must be done because other projects do it differently. — Edokter • Talk • 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you are mostly incorrect, EDokter. When the same format is used in virtually every other project that deals with similar media, it is an extraordinarily strong indicator that consensus has been reached - wiki-wide - regarding how to achieve the uniformity that is required in an encyclopedia. Virtually every film uses this format. Virtually every television series uses this format (though a great many of them don't even have episode articles anymore, and have been merged into single articles, like Alias). Even cartoon series use this format. This format was found to work better because it neatly sidesteps the problems of in-universe writing. More on that in a second.

An oft-repeated complaint here an inthe various DH episode articles is that using the names of the actors and characters is redundant. Using that logic, the current state of the article (with characters and actors) is redundant, too - we are listing the characters twice (once in the infobox and again in the lot summary). Hearkening back to my earlier comments on in-universe writing, this redundancy errs on the side of in-universe, as opposed to a Real World, objective view, which is pointedly incorrect. The method I prescribe allows us a way to maintain editorial distance from the subject matter, and conforms to the rest of the encyclopedia that has already figured this out. It isn't intrusive, it is minimally redundant and simply looks neater and cleaner. It also has the added benefit in that it looks more encyclopedic when compared to the majority of other articles. You argue that we don't have to follow the rest. I would point out that the major failing of that argument is the inference that DH articles deserve different treatment than the rest of the encyclopedia. Granted, this is the DH wikiproject, so folk are more likely to agree with you as to how genuinely spiffy DH is, but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information concisely and uniformly. Hope that answers many of your questions, EDokter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast-list character names

Arcayne has decided to remove the character-names from all cast-lists despite the fact that we're supposed to be an encyclopedia conveying information. I oppose this. Views? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, since Arcayne has banned me from his talkpage against policy, I'll point out to him: WP:BRD. You were bold by removing the names. I reverted by re-adding them. NOW WE DISCUSS. Not carry on reverting. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, this is what TT should have done to begin with, instead of throwing an revert-warring tantrum. Sigh - here we go again.

Actually, TT once again has his timetable off. The names had been removed in the article before someone reverted them out, and anfter conversation abut the problem, I did so, to better conform with virtually every other media article we have in Wikipedia. The BRD was followed. Simply because you chose not to contribute is not sufficient to complain when something happens you dont approve of.

The infobox contains the names of the actors and the parts they portrayed are listed in parentheses in the plot summary. TT seems to be reverting me because it is simply me, and not because he is actually thinking about the wiki outside the Doctor Who articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, this is what you should have done to begin with. Actually that's not strictly fair: you did discuss, then ignored what the discussion yielded and made your edits anyway. I'd say that's worse than no discussion. Rest assured that I, and TT as well I'm sure, would have reverted these edits no matter who made them. "Sigh - here we go again" indeed. U-Mos (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, actually, that isn't at all accurate. Perhaps yo might wish to check your facts and reply back later. Thanks in advance. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*checks facts* no, no, that's perfectly accurate. I think this very page proves that. Please attempt to prove otherwise, if you really think your edits had support. U-Mos (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should necessarily be bound by how other TV episodes are listed (unless of course there's a policy that says otherwise). I would argue that DW is different from many other shows in that it has a large guest cast that changes every week (recurring guest stars are not that common). The infobox is probably what a reader seeking quick answer to "who plays what" will look at first, and I would say that's a more logical place to put the character names than the plot summary, where the run of names in parentheses, in my opinion, break up the flow and look awkward. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that DH articles are not inherently different from any other episodic articles in Wikipedia. Take for instance, Lost. It has a cast much, much larger than DH, and yet, they list the actors only in the infobox, and list the actors' names in parentheses within the body of the plot where their characters are mentioned. If you look at other episode articles, they often don't list every unnamed extra that shows up in the program, and yet for some reason, DH articles do. The prevailing 'logic', as you call it is not the consensus of the majority of wikipedia articles, and before someone suggests that it is of special interest to fans, might I point out that this is Wikipedia, and not a fan site devoted to it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you object so much to the inclusion of character names in an infobox. It's got nothing to do with fancruft; it's about providing information in the simplest and clearest way. Lost has a large regular cast playing the same characters every week so it's not really a fair comparison.Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Lost has fairly large cast, not all of whom are regulars. Movies are the same. My most significant objection is that the infobox is for items that are not n-universe. As listing the actors in the infobox avoids completely the in-universe reality of the actors they portray, the fact that it is a ictional series is further reinforced by listing the actors in parentheses, and not pretending htey are real people. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

DW articles do not at all list every unnamed extra. If, as I believe you may be, you are referring to the "Man" in Forest of the Dead, his one-line role was enough to get him into the cast list according to the production team, and so according to Wikipedia also. U-Mos (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noted before that we aren't the BBC, and they do not drive what our content and guidelines are. Our policies and guidelines do. Just because the BBC thinks something is notable doesn't make it so. Perhaps you missed when I said that before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) I have said it before and will say it again: Arcayne, you seem to be the only one advocating the changes in the cast list, and your only reason stated so far in to bring it "in line with other TV articles". There is not a single rule or policy that states they have to be exactly alike. WikiProject Doctor Who is one of the most prolific projects on Wikipedia, and all it's editors have come to a consensus on how the articles should be formatted. You seem to be the only one opposed to it. You state it goes against the "overall consensus" between projects, but there is no such thing; consensus exists only between the active editors that are involved in this project, and that is all that is needed.

You could argue your case with WikiProject TV, but I can tell you beforehand that they will not mandate any rules laying down how each TV article should look; that is up to each project individually. Right now, the only thing I can tell you is that the current consensus on this project is as follows:

1. We list cast and characters in the infobox.
2. We list them as they are credited on screen.
3. Notable actors are mentioned in the plot.

So, if you want to change this, you need to bring some strong arguments advocating those changes and explain how they benefit the articles. And once again: "Just because other projects do it differently" is not a valid argument. — Edokter • Talk • 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect (and as I have mentioned this in every section you seem to feel the need to rush the conclusion of the discussion), I have already pointed out the pretty strong points about this. If you refuse to get it or just don't accept it, that's one thing, but please have the good faith to avoid suggesting that I've been ignored your request for reasoning - it's been supplied at least thrice now. As for WP:TV, the new MOS will probably reflect the need for more uniformity and less 'prettifying' individuality. Which, of course, is how it should be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cast-list character names - arbitrary break 1

For the purposes of the merge, I am going to re-post the same response from the earlier section, making small adjustments to address the questions here:

When the same format is used in virtually every other project that deals with similar media, it is an extraordinarily strong indicator that consensus has been reached - wiki-wide - regarding how to achieve the uniformity that is required in an encyclopedia. Virtually every film uses this format. Virtually every television series uses this format (though a great many of them don't even have episode articles anymore, and have been merged into single articles, like Alias). Even cartoon series use this format. This format was found to work better because it neatly sidesteps the problems of in-universe writing. More on that in a second.

An oft-repeated complaint here an inthe various DH episode articles is that using the names of the actors and characters is redundant. Using that logic, the current state of the article (with characters and actors) is redundant, too - we are listing the characters twice (once in the infobox and again in the lot summary). Hearkening back to my earlier comments on in-universe writing, this redundancy errs on the side of in-universe, as opposed to a Real World, objective view, which is pointedly incorrect. The method I prescribe allows us a way to maintain editorial distance from the subject matter, and conforms to the rest of the encyclopedia that has already figured this out. It isn't intrusive, it is minimally redundant and simply looks neater and cleaner. It also has the added benefit in that it looks more encyclopedic when compared to the majority of other articles. You argue that we don't have to follow the rest. I would point out that the major failing of that argument is the inference that DH articles deserve different treatment than the rest of the encyclopedia. Granted, this is the DH wikiproject, so folk are more likely to agree with you as to how genuinely spiffy DH is, but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to present information concisely and uniformly. Hope that answers many of your questions, EDokter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what consensus is. You state that becuase the majority of all editors on all other projects use one format, that that consensus should apply in this project as well. That defenitily is not the case. I pointed out below, that consensus can only exist between active editors that are working on a particular project or article. In other words... consensus existing on other project have no bearing on this project what-so-ever, not even when all added together.

We changed the cast because we were getting bored with the "old" format, so we experimented and build consensus on the final result. That format still adhere's to the general Manual of Style, and there is no policy telling us that it is forbidden to deviate from the general practice. We can do anything we want, as long is it conforms with the general MoS. There are many differences in format between projects I could point out (color etc.) but that would be futile; You arguing to try to change our casting format will be as futile as we would be arguing that The Simpsons project should use purple instead of yellow.

There will always be difference, because there will always be changes. Some changes remain, other don't, and sometimes those chages are copied to other projects. Otherwise, there would no improvement possible. — Edokter • Talk • 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, suggesting I that don't know a key policy in Wikipedia is probably not the best way to engender my good will, EDokter. I do understand consensus, as it applies to both article-specific applications as well as to the larger picture of the wiki-en itself. In the same way that three like-minded editors cannot override a larger consensus in an article, a single cadre of like-minded editors cannot override a larger consensus of how the Project. A similar example exists with the inclusion of synthesis in articles; everyone in the article can agree with its inclusion, but it cannot remain if it violates wiki policy and guidelines. This isn't as severe a case, being only about presentation, but it is a fairly close parallel.

That's what makes this an encyclopedia; there is a uniformity that exists and binds all of the entries together. The format is one of these binding forces. I would suggest that if you truly think that the DH articles deserve to be different from all of the others (and understand that the Star Wars, Babylon 5, Star Trek and Pokemon crew all want the very same thing), I think you need to take that particular revolution elsewhere. It is inappropriate to insist that these sets of articles be different. If you want the DH articles to be stand out, make them all FA or GA within the currently accepted structures. Stop arguing that DH deserves - alone out of all the wiki articles - to be different, and remember that you are an editor, not a revolutionary. Its like a ice-skater adding firecrackers and pinwheels with the hopes that it makes their technical performance better; it doesn't - its all distractive and not substantial.

Differences are okay, but not substantive differences, like the infobox content or how articles are generally structured. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason three editors can't decide to include synthesis is that there is a POLICY clearly stating that it is banned. The policy was developed by a consensus of the whole community. With respect to having character-names in the infobox, there is no policy, thus it's left up to the discretion of those involved. If there was such a community-wide consensus, as you claim, there would be a MoS entry, a policy, or at least a guideline. But there isn't.

While a lot of your views and opinions are sound, your tone often is not - and several of your ideas of how things should be run here are not. I would advise you to carefully think through how logically stable your arguments are before making them, since you seem to frequently - much more so than a lot of other editors on this project - be in the minority. While this doesn't mean "outvoted"; generally, if consensus is against you a lot, you're probably wrong. The Let's Invade Belgium Political Party, if it never gets any votes at all, should twig that its ideas are silly; in your case, they're not silly, they're plausible - just wrong.

And your defence of them is often not as it should be. Hope this helps! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I would really prefer if you addressed the edits and not the editor. I think perhaps you actually missed the comparison I was making: in the same way that a small group of editors cannot override consensus in an article (except in cases of policy or guideline violation), a slightly larger group cannot override the larger consensus of the wiki community. It was an example of proportion, you see. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You really should try practicing what you preach... U-Mos (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could I trouble you to, instead of addressing what you perceive to be my personality failings (that clearly have upset you), and actively re-focus your comments to address the subject at hand? Civility and professionalism is largely a two-way street. I am attempting to offer both; could I imose upon you to make the same effort, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, there is no "larger consensus". If the community deemed our formatting out of line, they are welcome to come her and plead their case. Once again: The only consensus that has any bearing on this project are the active participants. And at the risk of sounding to ownish; every editor editing these articles are considered active participants. — Edokter • Talk • 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Edokter, I disagree. The larger consensus of he wiki-en comunity agreed on following a certain format, and the evidence of that consensus is proven in that virtually all the the varied media projects utilize that same format. This appears to be a major stumbling point our acceptance of how improvement can occur; this project doesn't exist in a vacuum, and is part of a larger whole - an encyclopedia. As one of the defining criteria of an encyclopedia is the "systematic method of organization". Intrinsic to that method is uniformity. Claiming that you do not have to follow the larger consensus - and by extrapolation, the rules and policies of the larger Project - is non-conducive to reasoned discussion: since there is no problem, anyone reporting a problem becomes the problem themselves. That someone chooses to intelligently address an issue noting policy, guidelines and rather obvious proof of a larger consensus, it follows that there is in fact an issue that needs addressing, not dismissal.

I have addressed why the seemingly small issue of cast list organization in the infobox is actually one of subjective, in-universe writing versus objective analysis. It would be very helpful and instructive if you were to address those issues raised via counterpoint, please.

Lastly, I don't consider you "ownish", I am just of the opinion that this method of variation in the infobox is an attempt to unnecessarily differentiate the DH wikiproject from others. Perhaps there is some ownish-ness to that, in that any change proposed by a perceived outsider is inherently bad, but the resulting perception from those who are actually outside the project without interest in DH is that suggesting improvements would be futile, as the wikiproject members have all been apparently "drinking the kool-aid". This is why a lot of folk don't get involved; it simply isn't worth all the resulting drama.

I would point out that I am a representative of the community at large (just as you are), and I came here to point out the discrepancies between the fairly in-universe format of the infoboxes are now versus the revised format used throughout the rest of Wikipedia. It is not an evaluation of the wikiproject or the subject matter (though I certainly have little respect or patience for fan edits), but rather the uniformity and objective neutrality of the articles being affected by the current MOS regarding hte DH article infoboxes. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Well, you've made your point and it has been noted. I disagree that our formatting is "in-universe"; it is no less in-universe then a cast list in the article. And I still hold that the cast list in the infobox does not go against any MoS as you proclaim. You also keep citing the "bigger" consensus, which I maintain does not exists as you perceive it. Fact is, you seem to be on a lone crusade, so gaining consensus is not going to happen anytime soon. My only advice now it to "take it higher"; please demonstrate this wider consensus and show me any discussion (or start one) between other projects that have come to any binding consensus that must be adhered to. In fact, I have already suggested taking it to WikiProject Television if you are so sure. In any case, discussing it further here doesn't seem very fruitfull; we keep repeating ourselves. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I understand your point as well, but am disappointed that you refuse to acknowledge that a larger wiki consensus exists, as it seems so blindingly obvious to me, and I have clearly demonstrated time and again. You have yet to reciprocate my proposal with anything approaching wiki policy, which is also disappointing, More disappointing is the ease with which you are willing to marginalize my reasoned discussion as "lone crusade", which is decidedly unfriendly. You need to indicate why a change should not take place, as well. When presented the the rather clear evidence that this project adopts a format not used by any other media wikiproject, it is up to you to justify why it should not be altered so as to be more uniform with the rest of the wiki-en. This is an encyclopedia, not an underground newspaper.

It also bears mentioning yet again that the argument of redundancy is not actually accurate, as the listing of the cast and characters as you wish it to remain is actually more redundant than the cast-listing method I proposed.

Perhaps moving upwards is a good suggestion, but as you noted in your earlier recommendation of moving upwards that TV would probably not even hear the matter, it could easily be interpreted that you are attempting to fob me off, which isn't very helpful. Perhaps mediation or an RfC might be a more effective tool before pursuing that particular venue, as it would bring in editors without any vested interest in the outcome, and they would - as you have claimed you need - represent a somewhat larger view of consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Images: a polite request

I am writing this to make a simple and civil request. For the sake of everyone's sanity, this is what I believe should be done if a user disagrees with an image's presence on a Doctor Who page:

1. DO NOT REMOVE THE IMAGE. Simply removing a disputed picture from sight is, quite frankly, asking for trouble. It implies bad faith from the start, and hardly ever leads to anything but edit wars.
2. NOMINATE IMAGE FOR DELETION. Going down the correct route at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion will yield a result that will be considered carefully, and will have to be followed by everyone.
3. TAG IMAGE ON THE PAGE. Use Template:Ifdc to show all readers/editors that the image is disputed. This will allow as many people as possible to consider its use, and thus give a fairer consensus in the deletion discussion.

To me, this seems to be the only way to avoid the edit wars and arguments that have become so common here. If a proper and defined process for contesting an image could be decided within the project, it would be far clearer who is in the wrong if it comes to edit wars breaking out over images. U-Mos (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only agree with this proposal. NFCC has never mandated that images be removed on sight, but too many editors think it does. IfD is only the proper venue to discuss the removal of the image from Wikipedia, thus the article. — Edokter • Talk • 15:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting proposal. Unfortunately, I suspect most deletionists don't monitor this project page. Hiding an image, only to later speedy delete it as an orphan, seems to have occurred on a few occasions. If I can be blunt, that, to me, is rogue editing. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It would also be worth requesting that editors only upload images which meet WP:NFCC, repeatidly uploading images on spurious grounds is highly disruptive, and doesn't get anyone anywhere. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but if an image that blatantly fails NFCC (ie. failings other than point 8) comes along, it would be removed very quickly. This would still be the right way to contest it. U-Mos (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Physician, heal thyself. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What meets NFCC is a matter if judgement, and your judgement in labeling uploads which may not meet NFCC as disruptive, makes your comment extremely bad faith. — Edokter • Talk • 14:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully decline the first two points; you do not get to postpone policy compliance. However, I would have no problem with a temporary tag along the lines of "An image formerly in this article has been disputed[..]". Matthew (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No one suggested policy should be ignored. Please provide the policy that states disputed images should be removed on sight. I don't think there is one. Also, Wikipedia has a template for "this image is disputed", but not for "an image foremerly here is disputed". That seems to indicate the correct way of doing things to me. U-Mos (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"An image with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the image should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." You cannot rationalise the usage of an image the fails the non-free content policy--ergo it is removed.

"That seems to indicate the correct way of doing things to me." All that indicates to me is that no one has thought of/decided to create one. Perhaps rightly so. Matthew (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Look to where I wrote the word "disputed" in my last comment; it may give a clue to why that is not relavant. Of course images that clearly fail should be removed, I am referring to images that's uses are up for interpretation and consideration (particularly with regards to NFCC point 8). U-Mos (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to images that have a fair-use rationale that meets all other aspects of NFCC, save for likely 3a and 8, where the actual reasoning for the image use may be contested. --MASEM 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to separate two issues here:

1. Non-free images that lack any fair-use rationale or licensing information are, by policy established through the Foundation's resolution on non-free media use, are to be deleted within 48hrs of being notified (as of March 23, 2008). That is a requirement for any non-free image. There was an image used at "Turn Left" that this was the case for. In such cases, images should be removed from the articles until they are fixed, though the uploader should be notified their image fails policy.
2. Non-free images that have attempted to establish a fair use rationale and licensing information, even if the rationale or its use is disputed, are not immediately deleted, but instead discussed to establish if consensus is there to keep or remove the image. There is no need to purge this image off any WP article where an attempt to justify fair-use has been made. In fact, it is better to keep the image but tag it as being up for deletion at WP:IFD as to attract more eyes to that discussion. If it image is ultimately decided for deletion, there you go, but there is no policy that says a disputed fair-use image that is still in the dispute phase needs to be removed from mainspace use. --MASEM 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

See, my problem with this aims more at the freedom with which a relatively new and inexperienced (or, more sinisterly, an experienced editor) can nominate images for deletion with relative impunity. If the same sort of deletions were to be made of statements in an article, the editors would scream bloody murder, and yet when the same sort of wholesale deletions occur with images through the filter of IfD, we have to discuss the merits of the nomination, and offer a disruptive soapbox to the deletionists who have an admitted and clear agenda - the utter removal of any image from episodic articles. One of them has already been blocked for this activity, and their blanking of this block suggests that more vigilance is going to be necessary, as they are unswayed by current community consensus (not of this wikiproject, but that of the larger community). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support U-Mos' original proposal 100%. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, it isn't a vote, TT. If you actually support the proposal as you briefly note, then perhaps contribute to those discussions that shape the policy and guidelines regarding the way that Wikipedia uses images. Contribute to those IfD discussions with more than 'support'; add something policy- or guideline-wise to the discussions. And fight to keep them when deletionist admins up and close off discussions on images (no matter who uploaded the primary image) in DRV. Its one thing to say you support something, its quite another to back that up with actual motion and action. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out where I said it was a vote, and which policy says that indicating one's support ofr opposition of/to a proposal is disallowed. Or, stop criticising my contributions. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 12:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Images: a preventative aside

If active editors do not already do so, please make sure to watchlist the images used in the articles (as opposed to the articles only), as some IfD nominators seem unable/unwilling to notify the article discussion page as they are required to do. This helps nip problems in the bud, so to speak. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries are just too long

I've been looking at the doctor who articles - the plot summaries are way way too long - for example The Brain of Morbius. A summary is not a blow by blow account of screen time. I suggest this special interest group turns it's attention to some clean-up work before people like me get hacking and slashing. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How short should summaries be cropped to? EoinMahon (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

looking at some of the featured articles in film and media - about five paragraphs seems to be right. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

any further comments before I have a go at reducing one of the articles? (I'll wait two days for additional feedback). --Killerofcruft (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a movement to crop all the plot summaries -- it's just taking a while. Feel free to work on whichever article(s) you wish. DonQuixote (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago, I advocated doing more than just cropping, but also reworking the plot summaries to engage more with out-of-universe material. I did this with The Daleks, and it's held - it might be a good model to use going forward. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice model. does the project not have a standard template for articles we could work towards? --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else agrees, I tagged a few episodes a while back and got a mauling from some fans for doing so, it's nice that they've agreed that Wikipedia isn't just for Who fans Alastairward (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This debate keeps coming up. Too much plot regurgitation is regarded as copyvio. WP:EPISODE has a few guidelines. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

When does Nyssa become a companion?

Today this question has come up again. Up to this time we have had her as a companion beginning with Logopolis. Based on the info on this [4] website, stating that she traveled with the Doctor from The Keeper of Traken, User:Phil Sandifer wants her to be listed as a companion on TKoT's page. As we all know she did not "travel" with the Doctor in this story. I am posting this to see what the consensus of the members of the project are concerning this issue. I would cast my vote for not listing her as a companion until Logopolis as she does not fit any of the usual criteria for being considered a companion until this story. If our conversation leads to her being considered a companion in the earlier story that will be okay too. I just wanted to have this on the record so that we can point editors to this decision in the future. Thanks for you time. MarnetteD | Talk 23:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My concern here is this - "companion" is a nebulous term without a fixed definition. Accordingly, we have to go with what sources say here - every source I'm aware of tracks Nyssa's tenure from Keeper to Terminus - including the BBC website linked to from the article. To me, it ends up being original research to substitute our judgment for the sources here. The only grounds I can see for her not being counted in Traken is credit order - she doesn't get the early billing traditional for companions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say listing her from Logopolis is correct, as her role in Traken wasn't written with a future companionship in mind. If she had returned three years later, she wouldn't be listed as a companion in Traken. It just so happened she came back in the very next serial. However, with the BBC listing her tenure starting at Traken there is a strong case for the other side too. But I say leave it as it is. U-Mos (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the ref that you provided mentions Nyssa's reuniting with the Doctor, which acknowledges that she didn't "travel" with him at one point (ie at the end of Traken). Just food for thought. I gotta dig my Howe and Stammers books out of storage. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's lead already states The Keeper of Traken introduces the character, just not as a companion. She became a companion in Logopolis after the production crew decided to add her in. There are plenty of reliable sources to back this up, (I just don't have them to hand at the moment). I think the current wording is accurate and sufficient. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Image for Last of the Time Lords

Just to let everyone know that this image is gone again. A picture of the Master dying - an event that has never happened onscreen in the history of the show - how that isn't notable and descriptive of the episode is beyond me. Hopefully one of you will be able to add something that will meet these ever changing standards. I hope that you can find one! MarnetteD | Talk 20:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Image from Forest of the Dead

I also thought folk should know that an image from Forest of the Dead was also deleted, despite consensus to keep. The deleting admin cited - you guessed it - NFC#8. The admin seemed to know that theyr were overriding consensus to impose their own evaluation of the image. I've set the image for deletion review. If you might want to keep the images for the project intact, it might be helpful to contribute at the DRV discussion, located here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, was anyone planning on showing up at the actual discussion? Hello? Is this thing on? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've learned in my time on Wikipedia is that you can't make people respond instantly, or even at all in some cases. Actually that's two things. It's very frustrating. Wikimedia is even worse though. Nobody ever responds to my questions there. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was a little impatient, as I kinda felt like Gunga Din a bit, sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

s'OK, it's something you get used to in the end. I've come to expect a 24 hour wait for responses because people are in other parts of the world (which can have its advantages in some ways, like 24-hour vandal patrolling). Totnesmartin (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that some folk are weighing in now. Since it addresses an admin applying (and rather endorsing) the narrow interpretation of NFC#8 offered by the nominator (who was blocked for aforementioned pointyness), I thought it important to address the inappropriate closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pat Gorman

I was about to create this article, but there's no biographical info online. Is there any printed material on him? Should he even have an article? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is he? --Allemandtando (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Continually recurring extra/stuntman from the classic era. I don't think he ever had a speaking role, so the notability's a bit marginal. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually he did get a line or two over the years, not that I can remember which stories this happened in. He was an extra in many BBC shows in the 70's and it can be a fun viewing game trying to spot him, but, getting a full article on him that would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines would be tough. MarnetteD | Talk 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, extras don't really make it in do they, even when they're in loads of things. And the complete lack of online info on him doesn't help. Oh well. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He had several credits, some as the main background monster or guard, some as the body of more significant characters. Not sure there's much beyond a cast list though. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone wants to trawl through DVD production subtitles on the off-chance they'll have a brief outline of his life, I think this one's a dead-end. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Doctor Who

something strange has happened on the above page - anyone know how to fix it? 86.154.185.86 (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Some edits to a subpage caused the Portal to miss some tags. — Edokter • Talk • 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Series 4 production codes

I got a message from Tom Spilsbury, editor of DWM no less, about the production codes for series 4. He made three edits changing the production codes, which I reverted as incorrect and unsourced. Now he posted to my talk page, explaining why he did so; appearently the production codes order differs from airing. I have explained the matters of verifiability on this matter and invited him to comment here. — Edokter • Talk • 22:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you confirmed that the person who contacted you was indeed Spilsbury? How have you done so? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, just notifying the project. — Edokter • Talk • 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What's your source for the order you reverted to? They look (as they often are) made up. Matthew (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Look up the sources on the article. — Edokter • Talk • 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's some sources missing as only five episodes have citations. For some reason I suspect that the provided source does not back up the claim that they're "[production] codes" either... Matthew (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast ordering

I have boldly altered the text governing the order of cast listing to reflect an alphabetic ordering. There isn't really any precedent for listing the cast in accordance to credit rolls, but there is overwhelming precedent for using an alphabetized method. It avoids favoritism, recentism, and most of those other icky 'isms out there (though I think we can safely exclude fascism ;) ). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I still regard this proposal as POINT, following the discusion on my talk page. — Edokter • Talk • 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, fortunately this isn't on your talk page. Might I trouble you to focus on the matter at hand? I am asking why we cannot list the cast in alphabetical order. There is no harm in it, it avoids the personality conflicts noted above, and doesn't rely on a film editor to get right - especially when they have been wrong a few times. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Looking at the section topic) Two questions:

1. Is there a guideline at the Television, Radio, and/or Film project levels that addresses this?
2. Is the point of contention on over all (season/series) cast lists or for individual episodes?

- J Greb (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Most film articles and episodic television articles use alphabetizing. Seriously, its everywhere.

I think the point of contention initially addressed the episodic articles of the fourth series ('season' for us Yanks), but it is my suspicion that the new series of series all have the same problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline governing the order of actors. But to re-itterate my opinion: Listing the cast as credited is the most uncontoversial method; it leaves no room for discussion, and it is citable to the primary source. Any change from that would already constitute POV in my view. — Edokter • Talk • 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK... observations then:

1. Since there isn't a wider guide, I don't see a problem with one being put in place at this level. And there's a minor extension on that: I'd expect a wider guide coming from those involved with this to be proposed instead of being entered by fiat.
2. Most television episodes and feature films have actors listed in a specific order, both in title credits and in end credits. I don't see a reason not to use this ordering, especially since the opening credit order is repeated at the beginning of the closing credits, when dealing with a single episode or a single film. This sources back to the overall topic of the articles.
3. Given the fact that older Doctor Who "episodes" are serials of 2 to 14 chapters, each with their own credits from airing, They cannot be considered "single episodes" unless the edited "movie versions are used as the source. That covers most, but not all of the serials.
4. Any other situation — composite lists, "lost" serials, incomplete serials, etc — requires us as editors to chose. I'd say in those cases alphabetic, with a caveat, is the only neutral method. The caveat being the actor(s) that can be reasonably cited as being "Top". For the scope here thew only automatic would be the actor portraying the Doctor. Beyond that, the companions from either existent episodes immediately preceding and following serials.
5. It may be worthwhile to look at guidelines of other projects at this level such as those focusing on Star Trek, Buffy, and the like.

Last thoughts... If the bone of contention is that an actor that is playing what we the fans like to think of as a companion isn't billed with the other companions, then all I can say is tough. Neutral presentation of the information is either to take what we are give — the credits as the roll — or alphabetic, that's it. - J Greb (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the idea: "Listing the cast as credited is the most uncontoversial method; it leaves no room for discussion, and it is citable to the primary source" is a bit flawed. It has created controversy with the naming of the Companion stuff and whatnot. So the credit roll isn't in and of itself avoiding controversy and dissent. Some want to know what the pre-episode billing means, and they often attach greater significance to it, tying it slimly to generalized statements elsewhere (read: synthesis).

Listing alphabetically for the cast beyond the main two parts (Doc and Freeloader) truly avoids controversy, discussion makes basic organizational sense. As BBC has shown itself to be "unpredictable" in how it presents the cast, and the vagaries of television production politics (during contract negotiations with CBS, Jorja Fox's name was dropped from the credits of CSI completely) means that they can conceivably affect how we organize our data, alphabetizing makes sense. it keeps us above the fray and diverts any and all discussion about the cast away from the infobox. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Edokter's stance isn't flawed if it is simply reflecting a cast list.

I agree though that the isn't that great an indicator of "Companion". Generally it works since the "top" is the recurring cast, but that particular designation needs a secondary source.

As for the BBC being "unpredictable", care to cite an example or two with regard to the scope we're dealing with here?

Also on the topic of scope, the Fox/CSI tidbit, as well as a few Buffy credit quirks, is a fine example if we're talking about an overall guideline for the Television Project. But there is something here that it does speak to — uncredited appearances. For me, those would have to either be listed in alphabetically their own section or force the entire list into alphabetic order. And that's with a secondary source citing the role/appearance.

- J Greb (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I support copying the order from the primary source (the episode credits) as it has clearly been approved by the BBC who are in a position to arrange such things; we are here to report on the work of the BBC (the episode) - which includes the credits. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Edokter and TT, the order from the episode is NPOV, as it's just 1:1 from the primary source. Alphabetical order is more POV, as we change the way the primary source intended it to be. Also, seeing that the Doctor or Companions will be listed before the rest of the cast anyway, there is no way to do it strictly alphabetical. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I support just copying the episode credits. It's NPOV in that an automaton can do it. DonQuixote (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow the credits order. U-Mos (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with the arguments presented here, I can accept them for now, and reassess the issue in a few months. We use the BBC credit rolls for now, despite the inherent problems of infobox bloat (who's essential to the cast, and who is not?). I am glad that we were able to reach some agreement in listing the mains and the cast separately, though. That whole business with the guest star/Companions was synthesized nonsense. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why will you be yet again trying to change consensus in a few months? What do you think will have changed? ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a further suggestion too, Arcayne - as follows. The members of this project have very clearly and clearly and clearly indicated that they do not wish to use alphabetical cast-lists. Obviously, if there was a community-wide guideline that we should, then we'd have to. But we can't see one. Why don't you start a page at Wikipedia:Use alphabetical cast-lists, tag it {{proposed}}, and post on the village pump(s). If such a consensus really does exist, then getting support for this explicit typification of the supposedly existing trend should be easy. If, as we suspect, there is no consensus for such a proposal, it will be swiftly rejected and we can then forget the whole matter. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Always a tricky one to pull off - because *every* project thinks it must go it's own way. Having said that, I will welcome such a discussion to see where it would go. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I will assess the issue in a few months. If it needs re-addressing, then will be the time to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast Ordering - arbitrary break unrelated to the topic of discussion

I know you're ignoring me, so perhaps someone else could paste this and use their signature... What will have changed in a few months' time? Why is there any reason to suppose that people's views will have changed over that period of time? What events do you anticipate necessitating a "need for re-addressing"? Thanks. Because as far as I can see, all that this threat to force us to go through this whole editing guidelines, forcing consensus, lying, bad-faith, arguments, blocks, unblocks, "resign your mop", apologise rigmarole... will simply waste time and distract us. We (myself, Edokter, U-Mos etc.) won't change our minds on the issue - why would we? And I do hope that when Arcayne revives this bloody dispute - for I have no doubt that he'll think it right and proper to, for some bizarre reason - he will hastily reconsider when he sees the weight of opposition, and not take the opposition to this idea which has already been rejected, as a personal attack; an act which he has shown a propensity to carry out before ([5]). ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and you wonder why your comments are ignored as inconsequential. Allow me to put it another way, TT - the next time you toss out that level of incivility again, I will report you. Count on it. You have a tediously long history of being abrasive and making personal attacks. Opposing points of view is one thing; you choose to flavor yours with snarky little remarks, and even talking to you drops me down to your churlish level. I choose not to interact with you because of this. You have nothing to say that I would conceivable want to hear or consider to have any value. Now, shoo. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could quote the passages of the above that are unreasonable and/or personal attacks, I would be infinitely obliged. I also urge you to report me for any incivility above; I could do with a laugh, I've been overdoing things a bit lately. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down. We have reached a consensus for now, and Arcayne has every right to bring up the subject in the future if he so wishes. Not that I expect my views to change, but that's beside the point. We've reached a tentative agreement for the time being, so let's leave it at that. U-Mos (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, U-Mos. I didn't say I was going to opt for changes. I said I would re-assess the issue again later. Quite a different thing.

TT, I've said everything I plan to outside of an AN/I. You may not like me, but never, in your life, question my resolve if pushed. Time to walk away now, newbie. Shoo. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am in no way questioning your resolve, just pointing out the fact that if you resolve to do something dumb, then it's not a terribly bright idea. Reporting a 19-month "newbie" [quoted from your comment above] for non-existent personal attacks, while making the personal attack yourself, is stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

... and let's leave it there, shall we? As seen above, both users have violated WP:CIVIL, but reminding eachother of it will not help anyone. As U-Mos said, concensus has now been reached - let's just step away, and speak no more of this incident - Weebiloobil (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil. I don;t want to talk to the guy as it is an utter waste of my time. I have asked him repeatedly to cease the uncivil comments and personal attacks, and yet the fellow doesn't stop. I was ignoring him and and warning him that one more attack carries some consequences to it. I'm done talking about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Guest stars and NavFrame

Just opening up a straw poll about whether we should collapse the guest star list in the episode infobox. c.f. non-collapsed and collapsed. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Collapsed

1. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not collapsed

1. I don't see that it makes that much difference. Maybe collapse all cast except regulars? Why are you trying to collapse this section in particular? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I find it a huge inconvenience to have to click on a button to see the cast all the time (even in the ten minutes it was there). The cast are pretty major parts of an episode, so I think they should be in view. U-Mos (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
3. It looks much nicer non-collapsed; is easier to use, and less gimmicky IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 20:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. I don't see any need to do so. I like collapsed stuff usually but within reason. As long as the infobox fits in a single window with a normal resolution used there shouldn't be more things to make it less convenient. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   The infobox is about one-and-two-thirds windows high on 1440*900. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

5. There is no need to collapse this section. I agree with U-Mos that they should be in view. MarnetteD | Talk 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
   • Comment - I seem to recall someone saying that collapse boxes chew up a lot more load times. Is that accurate? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
   • The javascript responsible for the navframe loads whether there is one or not. While the page loads, though, the content of the hidden section is shown. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Collapsing is nice for link and other non-essential information, but this is article content which should not be hidden by default. I know the boxes are long, but I regard them more as infobars instead of boxes. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   This may be "oranges", but there are cases where relevant content should be collapsed to make the 'box manageable compared to the article size. Examples of this I can think of are "Other publishers" in the Manga 'box template and {{Infobox Asian comic series}} and "Title" in {{Infobox comics story arc}}.
   It's also worth noting the second example incorporates an "off switch". This can easily be adapted as an "on switch" so that if the list exceeds a certain point, the switch is added and the list collapses. - J Greb (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

7. Looks nicer non-collapsed esp. in long articles. Plus it is not a necessary change. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How many shortcuts do we need?

Currently, WP:DW, WP:DOCTORWHO, WP:WHO, WP:WPDW, WP:DW all redirect to the same place. Is there a reason for all the shortcuts? I would have thought just one would be good enough. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the most part they are all intuitive links (with the possible exception of WP:WPDW), so there's really no reason to remove any of them. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

None are harmful IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 07:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as no other page or Wikiproject could use them better, there is no reason to remove them. As TT says, if there is no harm, why change it? --SoWhy ^Talk 07:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although it does look a little odd, there's no need to change or remove any of these. If another project or Wikipedia page needs one of them, that can be negotiated when the time comes. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I thought I would ask. It is an awful lot of shortcuts, when simply 'who' would appear to do the trick. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox consistency

Moved from User talk:Edokter#Infobox consistency

---

Funnily enough, I was consistent when I went through the new series episodes - I changed them all to "2nd episode of 3-part story" because it's less ambiguous than "2 of 3 episodes". Do you mind reverting back? As it stands, they're less consistent now because they use "mins" whereas the rest of the new series uses "minutes" Sceptre ^(talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on a format first then? There's also no need to use 2 lines when the infobox is so lenthy already. — Edokter • Talk • 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether the line break should be there should be discussed, but I feel a need for disambiguation. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"2nd episode of 3-part story" is quite long, and already in the lead. How about "2nd of 3 episodes"? — Edokter • Talk • 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"2nd of 3-part story"? Only two more characters, less ambiguous. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. How about single episodes, which Dr who1975 is currently reverting? — Edokter • Talk • 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

He is in fact reverting all episodes and not responding. — Edokter • Talk • 23:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"1 episode" is already implied by the infobox, and we should keep the infoboxes as short as possible. If he continues reverting, ANI him (you don't want to get more calls for your head, do you?) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only multi- parters then (in which case, he did us a favor). I'll try the multi stories; if he revert, I'd appriciate you leaving him a note as well. No need fo ANI for now. — Edokter • Talk • 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All settled. — Edokter • Talk • 23:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the old format works fine. 1 episode is implied but so what? Doesn't hurt to keep consistency. Plus as I pointed out in Sceptre, Doctor Who movies aren't one "episode". 1 of 2-part story sounds silly, how about 1st of 2 episode arc. Toomanysidesofme (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For pages that are about individual episodes whether it's a part of a series or not has nothing to do with length. I have a suggestion, If you truly want to do it the right way you should add a new field to the template for "subseries".--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should talk about that on WT:DW before making such changes. I have reverted 3 changes by Sceptre thus, because I did not know about this discussion here. It's not really good if you talk only between yourselves and leave out others who will not find such discussion here easily. The template at WP:DW#Episode_pages should be followed or changed if needed. --SoWhy ^Talk 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jenny (Doctor Who)

I have just passed Jenny (Doctor Who) as a good article. Congratulations to all involved! Unfortunately, I must now start finding all C-class articles on the project - bah! - Weebiloobil (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you fix it?

No it's not Bob the builder here...I just wanted to know if someone can fix the temp/cat on Journey's End (Doctor Who). It still list the page as a stub. Thanks! --Cameron* 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - it is now B-class, as per WP:DW/A - Weebiloobil (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Midnight1.png

Hey youse guys, I'm not feeling sufficiently ogrish to find reasons to actively object to this image, but the rationale of "[displaying] a sneek [sic] preview of the episode" verily doesn't meet muster here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dalek Caan

Now that Dalek Caan has had appearances and activity outside the Cult of Skaro, is it worth giving him his own article? (although let's wait for the dust to settle, and the whovians without home computers get into work/school/library/internet cafe and add their helpful and informative edits). Totnesmartin (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Turn Left"/"The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End" or "The Stolen Earth"/"Journey's End"

Given that "Turn Left" does not end with "To be continued..." and there is a gap in the action between the end of that episode and the start of "The Stolen Earth", which does not open with a re-cap of the previous episode, surely "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End" are a two-parter, not the conclusion of a three-parter. Yes, "Turn Left" ends on a cliffhanger but this has happened frequently at the end of self-contained stories throughout the history of Doctor Who - just look at First Doctor serials, for example. If it was meant to be a three-parter, why no "To be continued..." as seen at the end of "Utopia" just last year (and remember they kept it a secret then that that was the first of three parts until transmission to help keep the Yana/Master secret, while we knew long ago that Rose would return proper in "Turn Left" ready for the finale - a two-parter). Further, Susie Liggat produced "Turn Left", whilst Phil Collinson produced both "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End". Why have a different producer on different episodes of the same story? Personally, I have seen numerous sources referring to "The Stolen Earth" and "Journey's End" as a two-parter and just one reference to the episodes as a three-parter and that reference has since been removed from the "Turn Left" and "The Stolen Earth" articles. And, if memory serves me correctly, that reference said something along the lines that the episodes can be considered a three-parter, not that they are a three-parter. Anyway, your thoughts on this issue, please? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the related discussion can be found at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Revisited. Currently, the consensus is to not regard it as a trhee-parter until other sources do the same. — Edokter • Talk • 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added my own argument to the list. I think it's the most convincing yet, but then I suppose I would.--Aderack (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverted User:Betacommand's removal of images from List of Doctor Who items

Given that the WP:NFC section on lists of items is very much hotly disputed, this is a friendly note to inform you that I have reverted the application of this policy to List of Doctor Who items. Happy editing! --Dragon695 (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

K9 Mark IV or K9 Mark IIIb

According to the Tardis Wikia, the K9 commonly known as Mark IV is actually IIIb. If you look at this section of the K-9Mark IIIb pageit explains that the K-9 is a replacement of Mark III. It says (quote) The designation K-9 Mark IIIb never actually appeared in dialogue. Documents packaged with the 1/4 scale Remote Control K-9 toy referred to this model as the Mark IIIb. So what do you think. Shall We change all the K-9 Mark IV to Mark III --I.W Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Apart from the fact that we cannot cite Wikia as a reliable source, there are other indications that K-9 is a Mark IV; most notable the safe where K-9 is housed prominently displayed "Mark IV". — Edokter • Talk • 17:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Doctornav

Given the events of Journey's End (Doctor Who) is this template still accurate? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Nothing changed really, only that there are two Tenth Doctors now. — Edokter • Talk • 09:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

DW confidential left the issue ambiguious Fasach Nua (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and since we have no evidence either way we'll have to stick with the status quo. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 17:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any way, it's a navbox, and we don't have a seperate article on him, so there is nothing extra to link to. — Edokter • Talk • 09:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to imply there are only ten cannonical incarnations, I dont know if that still holds Fasach Nua (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As it is only a navbox, it's not it's role to imply... that is better left to the Tenth Doctor article itself. — Edokter • Talk • 10:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So it needs to be modified? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In Journey's End, the Doctor sated that he used the regeneration to heal himself, but after that he "didn't need to change" - so he's still the tenth doctor. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the other Tenth Doctor be listed under 'Other Doctors' with the link going to the Tenth Doctor article or to "Journey's End"? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

And a small point — until there is something "official" it may be wise to steer clear of a debate on the "missing/lost/used" 10th regeneration. Yes, the show specifically states a regeneration was triggered, but the writers did something different with it, having the character heal but redirect the change. There is nothing yet, aside from fan spec, as to the consequences of this. Is this the 11th Doctor? Don't know. Is the "human" Doctor the 11th? Don't know. Can there still be 3 more actors to play the 11th, 12th, and 13th Doctors? Don't know.

And Wolf's idea has some merit, though naming the role may be a stick point. - J Greb (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Hurndall needs dealth with as well Fasach Nua (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean, stick him in the navbox with Bill Hartnell? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for putting Hurdnall in there. In fact, I did and it got reverted. U-Mos (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with adding Hurndall's name right next to Hartnell. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the primary reason for the 'box to group the actors or the versions of the character? It looks like it's the character with the actors as a "by the way" item. In that case Hurndel doesn't need to be there.

And just as a side note... the navbox MoS hods that there should be no redlinks or unlinked text in the body of the 'box. I see that the redlink for Adrian Gibbs has been downed. IIUC it should have gone a step further and have "The Watcher (Adrian Gibbs)" all included as the pipe. - J Greb (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode details

Hi there - I noticed that there isn't a summary table of details about each part in the story articles. I would like to get your feedback on my first stab at creating a template for this. The formatting of the colours, etc needs work obviously - but that is relatively easy to fix. I have used The Reign of Terror and Black Orchid as examples. User:DeadlyAssassin/Doctorwho Episode Box User:DeadlyAssassin/Doctorwho Episode Box Thoughts and feedback appreciated. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion was getting long and taking over the page and has been moved to a separate page Template talk:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead. It would be good to get your feedback there. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)