Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Inconsistency in how multiple nav boxes are displayed

Having gone through the serial/episode articles, I've notice that there isn't any consistency in how multiple navboxes are displayed...such as seasons/series listed first or last and seasons/series listed outside or inside "links to related articles" and sometimes "links to related articles" not being used at all even though it should be. I suggest the following order, which can be discussed/amended/etc.

• Season/Serial
• Christmas Specials
• Regeneration
• UNIT
• Recurring characters (The Master, River, etc)
• Monsters (Cybermen, Daleks, etc)
• Planets (Skaro, Gallifrey, etc)
• Awards
• Spin-offs
• External Links (A Christmas Carol, Kylie Minogue, etc)

More than three navboxes should use "links to related articles" template with season/serial placed outside.

I'll start doing some right now, but feel free to discuss and comment. DonQuixote (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind such things as "minor appearances" which require individual assessment. DonQuixote (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC have changed their website...

The BBC have changed their Doctor Who website again. Several articles from there are used as references, and I have been trying to repair the links. The current news feed only contains articles from May 2012. All the previous articles from the "new look" site (2010?) are avaliable at WebArchive, but the archive stopped July 2011. All the articles published after that and before May that are used on Wikipedia I cannot find on WebArchive or WebCite so far. Is there a way we can contact or issue a complain to the BBC and ask them to restore the articles on the current news feed? I'm not in the UK so I'm not sure I can complain. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there's nothing stopping anyone complaining or inquiring about the website regardless of location. I could say something too, if it would help. First, how big is the problem/how many articles affected by the "gap"? Depending on the context a lot of information might still exist in third party news reports from entertainment sites (i.e Digital Spy) or in Confidential and other ancillary productions. Finding other secondary sources may be a solution where possible.Eshlare (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but there are several that are used in articles. My main concern is interviews--such as the one with Gareth Roberts in "Closing Time" and Toby Whithouse in "The God Complex". Some important things in "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" as well. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Death Is the Only Answer and Good as Gold (Doctor Who)

I'm not sure these two mini-episodes warrant their own articles; there isn't anything that suggests nobility (production, reception, etc). Would it be fine if they were merged into an article titled "Script to Screen"? (I don't think they are really part of series 6 and series 7; "Death is the Only Answer" wasn't included in the Complete Sixth Series boxset). Glimmer721 ^talk 00:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it should have an article or not. I agree that they shouldn't be considered as part of each series given that the circumstances of "Good as Gold" don't seem to fit in with the post series five timeline at all. I have found a few reception pieces for that article and I think each of the sources I've used just meets reliability. There should be enough for a production section between these 1 two 2 links and the accompanying Blue Peter episode. I wouldn't be against a merge of Death and Good as Gold if it strengthens them, though there are more sources than for most spin-off media (I.e Big Finish stubs). Eshlare (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if they're merged into an article that focuses on the competition (with their plot summaries in a section, of course), that will be a little more encyclopediac. I meant to start a userspace draft of that yesterday but I forgot about it. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Versions of the Doctor.jpg at Files for Deletion

The conglomerate image used in Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who) has been proposed for deletion: [1] umrguy42 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who Magazine Issue 398.

Does anybody have a copy of this tucked away? The post "Journey's End" special with 18 or so cast members interviewed? For the expansion of a couple of references it would be an incredible help to check who the interviewers/interviewer editors were so I can list them in the cite journal template. Thanks :) Eshlare (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask User:Sceptre. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do.Eshlare (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It was Benjamin Cook. DonQuixote (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Did he do all eighteen interviews? My memory seems to tell me that they were split between two interviewers but maybe I'm the wrong :) Eshlare (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was Benjamin Cook. Given the nature of the interviews, I normally add the interviewee as the second author. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I did think it would be Cook but I didn't want to assume. Not that an editor would ever call it into question but it's good to be correct :-) Eshlare (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy

Anybody wishing to slag me off should weigh in at Talk:Spearhead from Space#Recent edits or any of several threads on my talk page: User talk:Redrose64#The Claws of Axos; User talk:Redrose64#Spearhead From Space; User talk:Redrose64#Robots of Death; or User talk:Redrose64#April 2012. Go on, the more the merrier. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the points you are making. Keep up the good work. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's time for the project to decide

Does this WikiProject wish to permit the unsourced addition of original research, opinion, speculation, even trivia, such as this? If so, others need to address the issue, because I, for one, am not happy with the backlash that happens when I try to keep things straight. Further to the threads mentioned above, I now have User talk:Redrose64#List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases, plus a slap in the face at WP:ANI, and also a torrent of abuse directed at me, but hosted on another user's talk page. Plenty more, elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It most certainly has no place in an encyclopedia. I have marveled at the restraint that you have shown to the attacks. Especially since it looks like a coordinated sock/meat attack. At the very least you have the right to remove the nonsense posted on your talk page as soon as they add it. Considering the NPA violations I would think that you also have the right to ask for assistance from other admins. The edits are not trying to improve the encyclopedia and preventative blocks should be applied if they continue. They are acting like third graders - and yes that might be an insult to real third graders so my apologies to them. Please keep up the good work and thanks for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 02:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, Talk:The Invasion of Time#Variant theme music. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Series 5 GTC

I'm a little late posting this notice, but I've (finally!) put series 5 up for GTC here. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Jo Grant

I've done a bit of work on the out-of universe sections of this article, with intention of submitting it as a Good Article. The article contained some really good out-of-universe material added by User:Digby Tantrum who isn't active any longer. Does anyone have any suggestions in regards to what is significant in regards to her Television/Expanded Universe appearances? The list of expanded universe appearances from the original article could do with being condensed to the most relevant material and put in prose, whilst the television section, aside from her first and last appearances, isn't particuarly sequential and is a bit flowery. Thanks with any help :) Eshlare (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Doctor Who in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Doctor Who for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Series 7 episodes

"Dinosaurs on a Spaceship", "A Town Called Mercy", and "Cubed" have all been created with very small information borrowed from Doctor Who (series 7). Is there really a need for these pages yet? I do have some production information for "A Town Called Mercy" especially, but I don't think it is ready to be an article yet. At any rate, I would like to nominate them for DYK sometime. Glimmer721 ^talk

I have been bold and redirected "Cubed" as there is hardly an information yet. I have also expanded "A Town Called Mercy" and nominated it for DYK. This next series will be tough without Confidential! Glimmer721 ^talk 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there's enough information (only just in the case of Dinosaurs) available for the episode 2 and 3 articles to remain. "Cubed" was too early though, the BBC haven't even confirmed the title yet and almost nothing is known about it for sure. In fact, there's significantly more information around for The Crimson Horror, and I hope no one's starting an article on that quite yet! U-Mos (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Added some more to "Dinosaurs" yesterday. The only information I've seen on "Cubed" is that it was the only episode in Block Three and thus Gillan and Darvill's last, and reports on recent reshoots by SFX magazine. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Does a forthcoming DVD release make the episode titles a fait accompli? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the first 4 are confirmed. But woah, didn't expect a DVD release already set. Does it give a title of the fifth? Glimmer721 ^talk 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Big Finish website change

FYI: The Big Finish website has been redesigned; all the previous content is there, I think, (or at least the pages for each audio) but the URLs are different. Is there an easy way to find and replace all the links in the articles? Glimmer721 ^talk 15:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary? That is, are the links actually broken? For example, at Earth Aid I find the old-style link http://www.bigfinish.com/206-Doctor-Who-Earth-Aid but on clicking that I find that it redirects to http://www.bigfinish.com/releases/v/doctor-who-earth-aid-435 which I guess is the new style. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The one in "Let's Kill Hitler" was a dead link, but now that I think about it, it was a news article. Glimmer721 ^talk 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 8)

Even with a source, isn't creating this now a tad premature? --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 18:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree - this single sentance could easily be incorporated into the episode list and the Series 8 article redirected there Etron81 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Did just this. Didn't put a date yet; I assume it will be 2013-14 but it may just be 2014 (depends what the 50th specials are). Glimmer721 ^talk 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out, the Sun's making a big assumption that series 8 will take us (and Matt) into 2014. For all we know the entire series will run in 2013 (which my fingers are firmly crossed for). All there is that is solid fact there is that Steven has pitched the series to Matt, he doesn't even say directly that he's signed up for it. This, however, does properly reveal that Matt's currently signed up for at least all of 2013's episodes, however many that may be. U-Mos (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Doctor Who: The Key to Time

There is a move discussion at Talk:Doctor Who: The Key to Time. Tim! (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

New Series soundtracks - OR?

Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 3
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 5
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - A Christmas Carol
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 6

There seems to be a lot of OR in these articles in regards to the episodes tracks (or variations thereof) were used in.

For Example, on the Series 6 soundtrack booklet/back cover, track 35 "The Majestic Tale (Of A Madman IN A Box)" is listed as being from "Day of the Moon", but the articles states it was used in "The Impossible Astronaut" / "Day of the Moon". Variations featured in "Amy's Choice", "Cold Blood", and "A Christmas Carol" - I'm thinking that this sort of OR should be avoided, sticking to information from the booklet or other sources, especially as music can be such a subjective subject? Etron81 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be sourced. If the booklet states that a track was used in Day of the Moon, it may be mentioned in that article with a reference (the template {{Cite album-notes}} is probably best for this), but if there is no mention of The Impossible Astronaut using that music, either in the CD liner or any other reliable source, that track should not be mentioned in The Impossible Astronaut. Listening to an isolated soundtrack, then watching the DVD and saying "yes, this sounds like that" is very definitely original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the issue that the songs were identified by ear? That's an acceptable use of primary sources. Booklets are good as a backup, though.

A similar question was just asked at WT:OR and as an RfC at Talk:Blackwater (Game of Thrones). In both cases, there were two respondents, only one of whom addressed the question directly. The WT:OR respondent said that identifying a song by ear was not OR and the RfC respondent said that it was.

I believe that the relevant policy states that if most users without specialist knowledge would listen to the episode and conclude that it was in fact the same song, then it's okay to use the episode as a primary source and say "Song X can be heard in Episode Y." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I had started work on these before reading the comment above - I got the Series 5 & 6, the Specials, and A Christmas Carol done, but Series 5&6 and Christmas Carol have been reverted now. - I think the notes especially vcould be excised completely - many of these are "variation heard in" or "a few notes are incorporation in" which is very much OR, IMO Etron81 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on this has been started at the WP:OR noticeboard Etron81 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I have started a request for comment at the WP:OR noticeboard Etron81 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments at the RFC have dried up without much consensus - my edits have been reverted - any chance of getting some kind of final word on this? Etron81 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Companion templates - episode ranges or a second row?

Rather than instigate a slow-burning edit war, I'm going to discuss here in the hope we can get some consensus. Here are the facts:

1. Template:Fourthdoctorcompanions has used ranges for the serials that kept the same companion line-up rather than overflow to a second row and link to every serial for, I believe, ever.
2. Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions only went over to a second row because, even with ranges, it would not fit on one. It has since been changed to link to every episode, because it is possible to do so with the unavoidable second row.
3. Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions can either fit comfortably on one line using episode ranges, or link to every episode and overflow onto an incomplete (or ridiculously streched, I guess) second row. This is how it currently appears, as user Edokter refuses to accept that there is no consensus for moving from the precedent set by the other templates.

As I see it, either we get a consensus to change how we approach the companion templates and adjust the Fourth Doctor's one to include a second row accordingly, or we restore the Eleventh Doctor's one to a single row until such a time as it will not fit on one (at which point the second row would not have to be so incomplete-looking). Thoughts? U-Mos (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Series 7 title card

I just uploaded the Title card from Asylum of the Daleks to the infobox at Doctor Who (series 7) not noticed there was another version of the file under down the page under Promotion - I'm not sure which one should stay - I'll leave that up to admins here - just wanted to let it be known! Etron81 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The bottom one seems a little clearer. It could be moved to the infobox for now, although it will probably be moved back once the DVD boxset art is released. Also, I'm pretty sure the titles are supposed to change for every episode, so... Glimmer721 ^talk 20:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

http://sciencefiction.com/2012/09/01/two-new-clips-and-a-new-logo-for-doctor-who/ confirms what you say Glimmer721. --94.3.169.176 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess the question is which one we will use. I suppose one of the special logos can be used to illustrate that in the series 7 article, and the main one could use the typical blue/silver one. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Updating Katy Manning article

I'm working on Katy Manning, the actress that played Jo Grant. I'd like to invite any of the experts here to join in as it's a WP:BLP that needs some work. Thanks. 64.40.54.83 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Oswin

Seriously someone has created a page for her. Now all the press say so far is that the new companion will be known as a different name/Moffat is going to have to be amazing in this plot twist. Think that the page is too early.78.146.1.242 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have redirected the page to Jenna-Louise Coleman. There is no sense having an article at the moment (perhaps in time). Eshlare (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best for now. We don't know how the characters will be related, and they probably won't be the same person (which will then require the redirect to be changed or expanded). Glimmer721 ^talk 00:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who Books: Preceding/Following

I have noticed since the discussion to remove "Preceding/Following" from the Template:Infobox Doctor Who book due to the non-notability of publication order for the Target novelisations much of the Doctor Who novel articles no longer carries the code. I feel like this hampers the ability to navigate the book articles, especially for the Virgin New Adventures and Eighth Doctor Adventures articles since its in-universe chronology follows its publication order. Thoughts?--DrWho42 (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Season 6B nominated for deletion

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Season 6B (2nd nomination) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who episode numbers- a good man goes to war and let's kill hitler

A Good Man Goes To War and Let's Kill Hitler are not a two parter. They are clearly separate stories. I would mean the episode count be changed from A good man goes to war onwards. It would also mean removing all references to them being a two par story (which they are not) Should this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.118.67 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source that verifies that.

Also see '"News Flash!: Matt's Back!". Doctor Who Magazine (Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Panini Comics) (428): 5. 15 Dec 2010.' DonQuixote (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

They were officially considered to be a two part story, even though they are very different. It's similar to whether "Utopia" is considered part of "The Sound of Drums"/"Last of the Time Lords". Glimmer721 ^talk 00:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The DWM 'source' is not accurate. DWM never called it a two parter. they were very careful not to. I'll check that issue to see what is actually said. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"The new season is now beginning to take shape, with Steven Moffat's opening two-parter followed by Episode 3 by Neil Gaiman, Episode 4 by mark Gatiss, and Episodes 5 and 6 by Matthew Graham. Episode 7 will be the first half of another two-parter by Steven Moffat, which will conclude in the autumn." "News Flash!: Matt's Back!". Doctor Who Magazine (428): 5. 15 Dec 2010 (cover date)."

And please cite a source that verifies that this source is inaccurate. DonQuixote (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Starring?

Do we want to split the cast into "Starring" and "Others", as was done with this and several similar edits? At the time of broadcast, there were no credits in the opening titles, and the closing titles did not categorise the cast. The Radio Times used the term "Starring" only for Jon Pertwee, no others. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:DWspinoff has been nominated for deletion

Template:DWspinoff has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 8#Template:DWspinoff. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Question re: The Angels Take Manhattan

I don't know whether anyone else noticed this but the shot of the NYC skyline that come just after the opening credits seems to show the World Trade Center towers on the right sight of the picture. It threw me a bit on the night of the broadcast and I waited until the episode showed up on my OnDemand menu to double check. Now I am familiar with the use of stock footage for that kind of establishing shot so I have a couple questions.

1. Was this noted in the Dr Who confidential that we in America have not yet gotten to see?
2. If it isn't the twin towers does anyone know what other NY landmark looks like that?

This is just my own trainspotting and curiosity so I don't think there is anything to add to the article for the episode. I am just wondering what any of you might know about the situation. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 20:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Confidential has been canceled, and it hasn't been covered in any production info I've read, other than the fact they did add some of the skyline in post-production (although that was Central Park, so they were actually filming there...). It's possible they are the new World Trade Center; I've seen what has been built of it and I've heard that it is pretty similar. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Glimmer. I don't think that the new buildings are tall enough yet to be the ones used in that shot but I could be wrong. We will probably never know (at least not until 30 years from now when they are doing making of documentaries for whatever technology replaces DVDs) just my curiosity getting the better of me. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AGMTGW/Hitler as two separate stories

Jpreddle has brought up Pixley, Andrew (December 2011). "Doctor Who Magazine Special Edition #30 - The Doctor Who Companion The Eleventh Doctor Volume Four" (Tunbridge Wells, Kent: Panini Publishing Ltd, December 2011 (cover date 21 March 2012) ISSN 0963-1275,(IMAGE), which lists these as two separate stories. The current source which we cite is "News Flash!: Matt's Back!". Doctor Who Magazine (428): 5. 15 December 2010 (cover date)., which, compared to the new source, is a little weak. Given that, I think we should make the appropriate changes to all relevant articles and count them as two stories. DonQuixote (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Big Finish articles and sourcing

Hello. It's been pointed out that at an AfD (I'll avoid linking to it because I'm certainly not canvassing and don't want to be mistaken for that), that lots of our articles about Big Finish audio plays cite nothing other than the official Big Finish website, which therefore fail to demonstrate that they meet WP:GNG. I'm sure the vast majority of them are sourceable, though. If anyone has back issues of Doctor Who Magazine, Starbust, SFX or Dreamwatch (or wherever else reviews this sort of thing), can I suggest that they have a look at these and see if they can't add little ==Critical reaction== sections to those articles, or other citations as possible (as they do larger features quite often). I've started to do this myself, but I have only an incomplete run of DWM, and none of the others. Morwen - Talk 11:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Kamelion a companion?

See edits of Special:Contributions/92.25.226.95. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Howe and Stammers' book Doctor Who Companions Amazon UK link says yes. The chapter "Aliens in the Tardis" has a section for Kamelion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's well documented that he was a companion but they didn't use him much because the programmer of the Kamelion prop died in an accident. DonQuixote (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated him as companion in the relevant articles and added citations from the Howe/Stammers book, the JNT Companions book, and the BBC website. From the IP editor's comments, it appears that there's at least one episode guide book that doesn't list him? Etron81 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I spotted that first time around, which is why I didn't do a blanket undo: I wanted project opinion first. I do have Howe & Stammers 1996; this is the paperback edition - it differs from the hardback edition in at least one respect (the pic of Katy Manning and the Dalek) - so there may be other differences between h/b and p/b. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Episode titles

My understanding is that, before we add episode titles to the lists List of Doctor Who serials we wait for confirmation that is the one that is going to be used for broadcast. We can have reliable sources for working titles, but these can change, as happened recently with the "The Power of Three (Doctor Who)" episode. There is a comment in the Doctor Who (series 7) article that says Do not add titles unless they have been officially confirmed by the BBC, and provide a reliable reference. We have sources for two working titles - "The Last Cyberman" and "Journey to the Centre of the Tardis" (sic). Do we wish to add these to these articles? Edgepedia (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the officially announced title changes. They Keep Killing Suzie is an example; IIRC, we only found out the fourth word when we actually watched it. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, working/planned titles are probably mostly of interest to the die hard Whovian (who have access to the sources as well as a wealth of fan speculation) and without it, the sun will still mark its course across the sky and the articles will probably still be adequately encyclopaedic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The source for "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" is the episode's author, Stephen Thompson, in DWM. What's your source for it being just a working title? Stephenb (Talk) 09:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

By definition, all titles are working titles until published (or broadcast). DonQuixote (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't really feel like the fear that the titles may be changed before airing is a good enough reason not to include them. There's always that possibility. Even if we waited until after the BBC announced the titles there's still the chance they could change them at the last minute. Otherwise we'd be waiting until the names actually showed up on screen during their premieres to add them. The real point is that the titles are accurate now and the articles should reflect what is currently known. If they do end up being changed later then we can change them here as well, no harm done. But if they have reliable sources I can't see any reason we shouldn't add them. --DocNox (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

However, while episode titles can and do change in production, they are unlikely to change once publicity for the episode is released. Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Classic TV episode synopses are poor

I apologize, deeply, for lobbing this grenade and fleeing. I am terrified of getting involved with this project, as it would quickly consume all of my time.

I have been watching all of classic Who, and reading the Wikipedia pages after each serial. The synopses are often badly flawed; I suspect that plot elements have been taken from the novels or some badly-remembered third-party write-up, instead of from the serials themselves. Someone who isn’t me really needs to sit down with each episode and correct these, or better yet, write up a detailed synopsis at an independent site that could then be cited here.

I hope someone affiliated with this project has the mania and the spare time to accomplish this. Best of luck. — crism (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually the plots were created seven+ years ago and were highly detailed and they all came from the episodes themselves. Some of them were extremely long (and even split into episodes) later changes to WP:PLOT came along and some editors (not the ones who had written them originally) went through and shortened them. This could be done with or without care. Then about six years ago there was a move to either do away with them entirely or to write them from an "out of universe" perspective - I was never able to describe exactly what that meant but after a couple years that sort of fell by the wayside. At no point were any of these changes implemented on all of the articles. With over 150 stories it is an immense task and it easily understandable that editors tired of it and moved on to other things. Please note plots do not need citations they just need to be kept brief. All of this is to illustrate how they have become a hodgepodge of styles as different guidelines were followed at different times. Anyone is free to have a go at improving them but, as we are all unpaid volunteers, I doubt that you will ever see an overall uniformity. This is just one long term editors overview and I, likely, have some things not-quite-right. I am sure others can add their thoughts and/or corrections as needed. MarnetteD | Talk 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to work on story pages as I watch them, though mainly with just cutting down, since some are way too detailed. Are there any you remember specifically that were inaccurate? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about a source

I happened across this blog, which goes through the classic series and spin-off media and not only reviews and analyzes them but gives a context to what culture was like whenever the media was released. I originally was iffy on actually using it, even though the author (Philip Sandifer) claims to have a PhD in English, but I found that he has been publishing the blog in books: Volume 1 (Hartnell) and Volume 2 (Troughton) have been published. So, would this make the entire blog credible as a analysis source (not for production information, but rather themes or maybe reception) or just what has been published (the stories of the first 2 Doctors)? Glimmer721 ^talk 23:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The published works can make him an expert on the subject, and so we can probably use his web stuff. It would be even better if some third parties noted his published works (book reviews, etc) and verified that he's an expert. DonQuixote (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I trust that [2] [3] and [4] are sufficient validation of my broad academic credentials. I think only the 3-D film one was published after I received the PhD and thus reflect that in the author bio, but they hopefully at least demonstrate me as "legitimate academic type." As for note of the Eruditorum itself, it's gotten some third party notability. [5] is Doctor Who News announcing the most recent volume. [6] is Adventures of the Wife in Space citing the blog. [7] is Nerd Array reviewing the book.

That said, I should add the caveat that the books are themselves self-published. So I'd still advocate care on that front. That said, I've got a reasonable publication record in the field of media studies as the above links indicate (they form about half of my peer-reviewed published scholarship), so I suspect I meet the criterion for self-published sources as it stands: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Your mileage may vary, of course, and the above is provided mostly because I can probably sum up the issues of my own unreliability better than anyone else can. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right, and one of my essays did get included in the recent Outside In collection. Which is, actually, a third-party edited publication on Doctor Who specifically. [8] is the book. So that's probably relevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I guess the Internet is a small place. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing episodes - mention in lead section?

Please see Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#Regarding Missing Serials Wiki Pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Series 7 episode posters

As most people probably know the BBC has been releasing individual posters for every episode of series 7. I added the one for "The Snowmen" to that page and I was wondering what people's opinions on this were and the possibility of adding them to the rest of the series 7 infoboxes. I didn't want to go ahead and do it and then get a bunch of FfDs if people don't like them. --DocNox (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi DocNox, can you describe how those images are "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", as required by policy? Edgepedia (talk) 11:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not beyond what I already put on The Snowman image summary. It's a poster. It helps with identifying the topic just like any other film poster we use on those articles. If that's not enough rationale, then so be it. Like I said, I didn't want to waste my time adding them all if people are going to fight it. Though I'm not exactly sure why when it seems to be enough rationale for posters on many featured or good film articles. --DocNox (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that a similar promotional image is being used in the "A Christmas Carol" episode infobox for the same purpose of visual identification, and that's a good article. --DocNox (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not a good argument - quite apart from WP:WAX, the image was added some months after the article was passed as GA. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. I actually looked into that before I posted it, but I guess I got the dates mixed up. --DocNox (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

After "The Snowmen" airs, it may be more appropriate to add a picture of the titular snowman, as they will probably (though only if they are) be covered in reception and possibly production (oh, how I miss Confidential...). It would be better than the poster, and actually convey a striking image that enhances the description in the plot. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Great Intelligence

Great intelligence is, as of now, a redirect to Yeti (Doctor Who). Perhaps this needs to change? 78.149.33.28 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's implied that it's the same Great Intelligence, which is verified on the webpage [9] DonQuixote (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Then what are we waiting for? Allons-y! Sophie means wisdom (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S.

I'm wondering whether the article P.S. (Doctor Who) is really notable. It's a five-minute extra scene with not too much behind it, and no major reception. I've included the notable information in Doctor Who (series 7) in the "Supplementary episodes" section, and I don't see why a main article is needed. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would probably be better to merge it with the "Angels Take Manhattan" page. Ωphois 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already added the necessary information in the "Production" of "The Angels Take Manhattan". Glimmer721 ^talk 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the Episode infobox include a place for citations?

Would it be helpful to include a section for citations in the template {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}. At Redrose64 (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Doctor Who episode#Should this infobox include a section for citations?. Everybody is invited to join the discussion. Thanks. 64.40.54.49 (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Stamps

I am sure most or all of you are aware of the fact that the Royal Mail is issuing a set of stamps featuring all 11 Drs in March to celebrate the shows 50th anniversary. The ins and outs of using pictures here at WikiP has always been a mystery to me so I am wondering if we will be able to add them to an article. Also which of the article(s) do you think they will be appropriate for? Suggestions will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that before, but I checked at Commons and UK stamps are held under copyright by the Royal Mail, and not free images (unlike US stamps which are). Since they appear to be the 11 Doctors + 4 extras for common foes, we have pictures of those already and an image would be redundant. --MASEM (t) 04:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for your work in checking things out. From what I could find the common foes are all on one stamp. A shame we can't use them. I do feel that the honour deserves a mention in one of our articles so ideas of which one would still be appreciated. I get the sense that the celebrations for the 50th are gonna be bigger than those in the past so more things like may come up. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We can certainly mention the stamp issues in text, there's no question there; just that it would go against NFCC to use the stamp images in such a way. (I just had a thought that it would be interesting if the Royal Mail published a single sheet with all 11 Doctors as a possible single NFCC image (as opposed to our current one which is effectively 10 NFCC + 1 free) for showing the Doctor character, but that screws us when Smith decides to leave and we get 12th Doctor.) --MASEM (t) 14:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, how notable is this run of stamps? I've asked for help on this at the philately wikiproject. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here in the UK, we get eight to twelve sets of "special stamps" per year. Each set typically consists of four to six stamps; a set with more than eight is somewhat unusual.

The programme for 2013 is summarised at http://www.royalmail.com/sites/default/files/2013StampCalendar131112.pdf or if you want a third-party source that is as reliable as they go, try Stamp Magazine. A search for 2013 stamp sets on Royal Mail's website turns up just one entry - the set coming out next week for the 150th Anniversary of the London Underground (in connection with which Metropolitan Railway will be TFA on 10 January 2013). Poking about I found Classic TV - Doctor Who so there will be eleven stamps - but none with foes. Artlyst also says 11 stamps. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The four villains appear to be for a set of second class stamps, per [10].

I don't think that these source prove notability -- but that said, (and unfortunately on the wrong side of the pond to follow much), the entire 50th Anniversary may get a lot of attention, at which point I would argue that the stamp images could be used to illustrate how the country is celebrating the landmark for this show. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the stamps will be copyright and not usable in an article unless any individual design features an out of copyright image (unlikely here). They could be used to illustrate an article under fair use provisions but a strong case would have to be made that such use was warranted. An article about the stamp issue itself would definitely not meet notability requirements in my opinion. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I asked for ideas of what existing articles we could add the info to. I certainly agree that the stamps on their own do not merit a separate article. One question towards notability would be determining how often TV shows are given the honour of a special run of stamps. Meanwhile the fact that it is a set of all 11 Drs would seem to make it notable enough for a mention in either Doctor Who or Doctor (Doctor Who). As to the other set I just found a better look here [11] so it is four separate stamps - or is it five as I can't tell if the Tardis can be removed to use on a letter. This second may not be notable enough for a mention - I think there was a Royal Mail Dalek stamp several years ago but I can't remember if it was ever part of our Dalek article. Here is one more suggestion - maybe we could set up a sandbox for items that are celebrating the shows 50th anniversary. If these stamps are one of only 2 or 3 items then, perhaps, they don't meet notability standards, but if they start to build up (I wonder if Google will give them a special logo on Nov 23rd?) they might merit a subsection of one of the Dr Who article. Thanks to all for your thoughts and suggestions. MarnetteD | Talk 02:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps the topic 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who is a notable topic in itself, given that there's little room in the current show article to include such information. I don't know if this is truly a case, but if the anniversary article is considered notable, the issuing of stamps for it would be a reasonable element to illustrate it with non-free (to some extent). It's not a guarantee, however. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Google image page linked by MarnetteD shows what the Royal Mail call a "miniature sheet". These are often issued simultaneously with a set of special stamps - sometimes they contain the same stamps as the main set, sometimes they differ. When they differ (as in this case), the stamps comprising the miniature sheet are not normally sold separately. For this reason, although stamps from a miniature sheet are postally valid, they are not normally postally used - it would destroy the miniature sheet. Looking carefully I see that the TARDIS in the centre is marked both with the Queen's head and the non-value indicator "1st", and closer examination shows the die-cutting for a stamp, albeit tilted at an angle. It's therefore a stamp in its own right, so there are a total of 16 stamps. Two side-issues come up here: special stamps for use on letters within the UK show either "1st" or "2nd" - they have not shown a monetary value since about 2000, although higher-value stamps for use on international mail continue to bear a value. The stamps are not perforated, but die-cut to resemble perforations; this has been the practice since self-adhesive stamps began to replace the gummed variety in the early 2000s. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest, at the very least, mentioning them at Doctor Who merchandise (and, while you're at it, also mentioning the Dalek stamp from the Millennium series). I'm fairly certain that the stamps would be copyright (the Royal Mail web site has a boilerplate copyright notice on every page, and Doctor Who itself would be a BBC trademark so I'd suspect some industrial-grade licensing has gone on behind the scenes to get the stamps to print in the first place). Perhaps if the Royal Mail is planning any sort of event to publicise the stamps, then a photograph of the event would do? Daveosaurus (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Millennium series of 48 stamps was issued in sets of four, one set per month, during 1999. The Dalek stamp was part of the June 1999 set, known as "The Entertainers' Tale", depicting: (19) Freddie Mercury; (26) Bobby Moore; (44) a Dalek; (64) Charlie Chaplin. No other DW-related stamps had been issued by the end of 2007. About a year or two back, my mother passed on to me her stamp collection. Among this, there were eleven of the twelve Millennium sets from 1999 - guess which one's missing? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I only just got to dealing with the previous suggestions. Per Daveosaurus' suggestion I have added this section Doctor Who merchandise#Commemorative stamps to the merchandise article. It needs cleaning up I am sure so any help will be appreciated. As the year continues we may want to pick up Masem's suggestion about a full article. Thanks again to everyone for your responses. MarnetteD | Talk 18:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with Robot (Doctor Who)

I'm working on the first Tom Baker episode Robot (Doctor Who) and would like to invite the experts here to join in. I'd especially like to hear from anybody that has the DVD or helpful reference books as I'd like to cite the entire article. I've started a discussion at Robot (Doctor Who)#Improving this article. Thanks. 64.40.57.53 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In looking at the Plot section for Robot, it looks like it needs a lot of work. I'm not very good at trimming, so I'm thinking of a complete rewrite from scratch. I wanted to post a note here and get some input for a few days before I do that. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks. 64.40.54.54 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I'd suggest modelling it after City of Death and Genesis of the Daleks. Also, here are some reviews: Radio Times, AV Club, DVD Talk, IGN, Dreamwatch, and an entry in silliest moments. Those may also be used for sourcing other things--especially DVD release (and the RT article also has filming locations and dates). Also, I think the text on the BBC website is the same from The Discontinuity Guide and The Television Companion (according to the site itself), so both don't need to be sourced. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 64.40.54.112 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's looking good. By the way, you might want to copy some of the information (especially on casting) to the Doctor Who (season 12) page. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I sincerly appreciate the help from you and Masem (talk · contribs). Right now my time is limited, so I'll take a look at season 12 as soon as I finish with Robot. Kind regards. 64.40.54.13 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit more trimming on the plot, and while it's still a tad long , its probably okay given this was a 4 part serial. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I've copied some things from Robot, Ark in Space, and Genesis to Doctor Who (season 12) and worked on restructuring that one. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Glimmer, WOW, it looks great. Thanks very much for all your help.

@Masem, thank you too. The plot section is much better now. It's starting to turn in to a decent article. 64.40.54.55 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rory Williams, Companion?

In the sidebars of the episode articles: Why does Rory Williams as a companion require citations throughout (most of) series 5, until the penultimate episode in which he is listed as a companion with no citation from there on?

Perhaps there is a historical reason? As a modern viewer familiar the story arc, but unfamiliar with the phenomena of uncertainty surrounding past releases, the citations are in fact confusing, _particularly_ the first citation which is a blog post written about Cold Blood (Doctor Who) but cited in the sidebar of numerous episodes that _precede_ Cold Blood in broadcast order.

Is there argument that Rory Williams played the role of companion in these episodes? If so, the citations should provide context for that argument. As it is, they appear to be superfluous and should (in my opinion) be removed from the sidebars.

98.222.132.64 (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided to allons-y and I removed these citations because it is plainly observable that Rory is a companion in these episodes just by watching them, and so requires no further citation beyond the published episodes as they aired, which falls under the purview of plot summary. 98.222.132.64 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It was there because at the time of airing, it was debatable whether he was supposed to be a companion or not. From today's perspective, it dos not require a citation. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Assimilation² article

I would like some input on my comments on and changes to the article for the crossover comic Assimilation², or some significant non-plot additions to it. In short, it’s empty except for a plot section that seems far too long. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Tardisodes/prequels - supplemental episodes?

Doctor Who (series 2) Doctor Who (series 6) Doctor Who (series 7)

The Tardisodes/prequels have been added to these pages as "Supplemental episodes" and removed because "they aren't separate episodes" which I don't really understand or agree with as their storylines are not included in the episodes they precede. The two for the Snowmen have their own titles (and one was broascast on BBC1) - in short they are exactly what this section is for - short videos that tie in to and supplement the main series' episodes.

Just wanted to gauge others' opnions as these have been added/removed a couple times. Etron81 (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the prequels, at least for series 6, they are already covered in another section. (I think I removed them from series 7 just to keep it onsistant.) The TARDISodes seem fine, as long as they are not individually separated out. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We could move that section into the Sup eps section for Series 6/7 Etron81 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Series 6 and production blocks

I'm working on the series 6 articles as all the episodes have been promoted to GA. I have two primary questions:

• Should "Space / Time" and Night and the Doctor be considered part of the topic? I may be able to promote them, or at least "Space" and "Time".
• Should the production blocks in the series 6 article be removed?

The latter is only sourced in series 1 (a book) and series 5 (a DWM issue citation that I borrowed from a previous revision of the page) and is tagged in the series 6 article as unsourced. I thought that it might be better if it was all in a filming section (as seems to be the case with series 7 so far), and I have done a rough outline of this on the page in order, though I realized that we don't have dates for the filming of "Curse of the Black Spot", "A Good Man", "God Complex", "The Girl Who Waited", and "Closing Time" (as well as the main sequences for "Let's Kill Hitler"). I didn't know if this would undermine any accuracy, or if anyone had any ideas or sources. Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 23:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Until about 2008 or 2009, the Shannon Sullivan pages had production block information. I'm sure it used to be present on all up to Voyage of the Damned, and several later stories - but it all seems to have been removed from those pages. Some show "Next in production" and/or "Previous in Production" at the top, but I suspect that piecing together a sequence is WP:OR. Could we use this list? It does have Space / Time but not "Night and the Doctor". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It was used in "Doomsday", though the individual episode pages cite sources. I generally try to avoid it as it's more of a fansite, although it is authored by one person. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

As far as I can tell, the 230+ results of the following search are all dead links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.lycos.co.uk%2Fcloisterlibrary

I haven't got the time to remove them myself, but I thought anyone at this project who might be interested might want to know. -- The Anome (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Make Doctor Who featured article

Hi I was wondering if anyone would like to join me in making the Doctor Who article a featured article for the 50th Anniversary. We would really need some sort a of list of problems with the current page, any ideas would be appreciated. Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Splitting episode list?

Hi all. A little while back I proposed the RM mentioned a few sections up. The discussion closed a few days ago. No one specifically supported or opposed the move, but a fairly weak consensus emerged for splitting the episode lists for the old and new series. I don't really agree that "The treatment of the new show as part of the old show is... fandom"—Doctor Who seems to agree—but the example of Dallas (1978 TV series) and Dallas (2012 TV series), with their separate episode lists, makes me think it's not such a bad idea. If more editors agree that it's viable, I'm happy to take the lead in splitting. Two main concerns strike me, however:

• What to call the separate articles? It probably makes the most sense to retain List of Doctor Who serials and split the new series into List of Doctor Who episodes, currently a redirect. But this brings up the other issue...
• What to do with all the incoming links? And how big of a problem is this? I suspect many of them are just from Doctor Who templates, but maybe not.

I was surprised at the low interest in the RM. If we think the decision reached was too hasty, perhaps the closing administrator will agree to reopen discussion. Let me know what you think. --BDD (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, this. I'm not familiar with Dallas, but as the newer series' article contains a quote stating that it's "exactly the same [as the old show], but it's 2012. We consider this year 14 of the show. It's exactly as if [viewers] forgot which channel we were on." I'd tend to think it should be merged into the same article and considered as one entity. However, in the case of Upstairs Downstairs (1971 and 2010) I myself split that into two articles a while back (before the revival was disgracefully cut short, in fairness) because it was consistently described as a continuation or sequel rather than the same show (not to mention the almost entirely different characters and crew and even a new channel commissioning). Doctor Who does, conversely, get described as one entity as the 50th anniversary stuff is a testament to at the moment (if they were two different programmes, would there be an anniversary to celebrate at all apart from 10 years in 2015?). And if if were split, how would the content at Doctor Who itself be divided up? I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it raises a lot of practical difficulties. U-Mos (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that List of Doctor Who serials is a Featured list. After the split are both articles featured? Or neither? We would at least need some sort of review IMHO. Edgepedia (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Immediately I would suggest neither, with separate reapplications.Zythe (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If we're looking at splitting the list, I would also suggest moving the Radio broadcasts into their own list as Radio 4 Extra seems to continue to air BF stuff, the list will only get longer Etron81 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a split is necessary. Perhaps renaming the list by replacing "serials" with "episodes" or "stories" would be more accurate, but the list's purpose is still pretty clear and making readers jump from page to page to access a full listing of Doctor Who episodes from the show's different eras and formats simply adds unnecessary complexity. The current list is a Featured List and there's no page limit to worry about on an online encyclopedia. If it's not broken, why are we trying to fix it? –Mabeenot (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the only thing I can think about this is moving the "radio broadcasts". But I think the classic and the new series should stay at the same place, maybe renamed "serials and episodes". Glimmer721 ^talk 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There should be no split - Doctor Who is one show. The idea that it is two is a complete MYTH held only by people who don't like the "new" one. The BBC say that it is one show - and we should go with reliable sources rather than un sourced opinions of some "fans" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, so there are some clear issues with a split that didn't come up in RM. I'm starting to think I should BOLDly proceed with my original move, to List of Doctor Who episodes. After all, the serials consist of episodes but not all episodes are part of serials. The current title, in fact, is better suited to a list which excludes material from 2005 on. But that doesn't seem desirable. Any objections? --BDD (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Up to The Gunfighters, every episode had an individual title, so that's OK. But from The Savages to Survival, the episodes were simply "Episode 1", "Part One", or similar, so a "list of episodes" doesn't really fit those 1966-1989 stories. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

They're still episodes, aren't they? (Especially if they have "episode" in their title! :) ) I'm not proposing to change the structure of the article, so the relationships between episodes and their serials should still be clear. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much of a point to separating each individual episode out; it would make it even longer and give no extra information. (There would be 10 individual spaces for The War Games, for instance.) Glimmer721 ^talk 02:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Again he didn't propose a change in structure, just the title. I would support the move for the reasons given. It's also the terminology used by the BBC on their own episode guide, which also lists both the old and new series together. --DocNox (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2013 (LUTC)

The issue is that the classic serials are clearly not listed as episodes, they're listed as distinct serials (in that their they are defined (post-Gunfighters at least) by the title of each serial rather than being seperated out into Green Death, Part 1, Green Death, Part 2 etc.) which happen to be made up of episodes. In that sense, list of serials and episodes is a more accurate title. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Series 7 template

I changed the series 7 template here - only to have it reverted.

The reason I did was to make it clearer what was going on. I felt having both Christmas specials on the top line might make it look like they were both broadcast together rather than the second being in the middle of the series, and thought doing this split would better show the division of the episodes. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles make it clear that the two Christmas Specials were broadcast a year apart, with the second one broadcast in the middle of series 7. There's no need to make the template more cumbersome to explain that. DonQuixote (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How to move file names?

I was uploaded the cover of Damaged Goods (Doctor Who novel), but in my rush I forgot to retitle the file. As far as I am aware I cannot move it to something much more suitable, so does anyone have those privileges? Thanks. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the ability, but I've never used it so don't know the full procedure. Best thing to do is to mark the file for renaming, this will put it into a category where an experienced filemover will spot it and carry out suitable actions. There are two different templates, depending on where you uploaded the file.

• If the file was uploaded to English Wikipedia, put a {{Rename media}} template on the file description page
• If the file was uploaded to Commons, put a {{rename}} template on the file description page

In both cases, you will need to fill in some parameters, the bare template shouldn't be used alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I worked out which file you wanted renaming, so I've done this. Let's see what happens! --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I meant to have the cover in the article when I posted this, but it wouldn't take it for some reason. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is "List of Doctor Who directors" unnecessary?

I want to nominate this list for deletion, but I don't know. Many want it kept because it's "useful", "easy to navigate", and such. Nevertheless, I can look through names of directors in episode lists, but list of directors makes things easy for readers. Still, I'm uncomfortable with its existence. --George Ho (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was created due to the listification of a category for Doctor Who directors. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV directors by series. There was consensus to turn categories into lists. As for is it necessary - I don't know, I'll leave that for others to decide. –anemoneprojectors– 13:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode - add incidental music composer?

I was thinking of adding the incidental music composers to the Doctor Who episode pages production section, but then thought it would be more appropiate to add this to the infobox (Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode) instead (in the crew section with the writer, producer, director, etc). - I'm not sure how to add this field to the infobox template and wanted to gauge reaction before making a change to such a crucial template anyway - What does the project think of this idea? Etron81 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

When you are unsure as to how to edit a template, it's best to make tests somewhere that doesn't matter.

• Identify the template's sandbox - usually this is the template name with /sandbox appended - so this would be Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/sandbox.
• Check its history to see if anybody else is making experiments; in this case the last sandbox edit was in September 2010 so you're OK on that score.
• Open the edit window for the live template, and copy the whole of its content; close the edit window again
• Open the edit window for the sandbox template, delete everything that is present, and paste in the copied template code. Save this with an edit summary like "synchronise sandbox from live template".

You now have a template which you can alter without fear of breaking the live template. Edit and save at will; whilst doing this, observe that below the edit window there is a box titled "Preview page with this template" containing an entry item "Page title" and a second Show preview button. Don't do anything with these.

To test your amendments, you should ignore the "Preview page with this template" box; it is for making tests using an unsaved live template. Instead, tests should be made using a /testcases page, which in this case will be Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/testcases. This already exists, containing two seemingly-identical infoboxes - but notice that when editing, one of them (headed "Old") uses {{Infobox Doctor Who episode/sandbox}} whilst the other (headed "New") uses {{Infobox Doctor Who episode/sandbox}}. Add your new parameter(s) to both of these, save and compare the result. The "New" side should have everything that the "Old" side has, plus your new parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you muchly! I have added the parameter and the testcase can be seen here: Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode/testcases. If there are no objections, I will move it to the live template and start adding the info to the articles Etron81 (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look myself, and all seems correct - we just need the general approval that this is a good thing to do.

• Support Good old Dudley Simpson. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Any further comment? Are we good to go on this? Etron81 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As there's been no objections, I've gone ahead and implemented these changes and updated the infoboxes. Etron81 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeti article

Hi, I just kinda came in here because I noticed there was a tag at the top of the Yeti article that really worried me (meaning it says the Yeti article doesn't establish its notability and could be either merged or deleted) so I went through and tried to construct an out-of-universe framework to hang the Yeti article from - I guess my question is, did I go overboard on trying to add content and now someone else has to streamline it, a job well done and the tag can come down, or heart in the right place but sorry not quite close enough and the tag sticks? Comics (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well done, looks good to me; I just ran a couple scripts and tidied it up a little. Can we agree that Yeti (Doctor Who) is notable? Edgepedia (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Quality

I'd still appreciate some more comments before taking down the notability tag, but I'm just curious about the procedure for changing the article's Quality scale. I think I've taken it out of stub territory, which is defined as being "a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article." I know just adding more content doesn't justify moving an article out of stub but looking at articles Auton and Silence (Doctor Who) I'd say it's at least been improved to a Start class article. Would just appreciate some more info here. Comics (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Babelcolour

Hi all; re this edit - can anybody see anything relevant on the linked page? I get a lot of blank space, and five enormous figures 60931 (they are so big that they stack vertically). The only readable text is a column of blog/comment/reader posts down the right-hand side, where the only mention of "The Mind of Evil" reads "HungryHatter @Azaxyruk @Babelcolour Bloody good job it wasn't the YouTube stuff that led to Mind Of Evil 1 being re-coloured or I'd " which is hardly s reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Same with this edit, except that I see exactly zero uses of the word "Zygons". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Both links work for me and support the edits - not sure what's going on on your end Etron81 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge Great Intelligence and Yeti articles

I've started a discussion here: Talk:Great_Intelligence#Merge_Great_Intelligence_and_Yeti_articles, in the hopes of merging these two articles together, on the basis that the principle we work from is distinct real world notability and not in-show significance.Zythe (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Susan Foreman and The Rings of Akhaten

We could do with a few others monitoring Susan Foreman. The article has a sentence about The Rings of Akhaten, but some editors seem to feel that it needs to be mentioned twice (or even three times, as here). If I revert again, I violate WP:3RR. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got her on my watchlist. The article is strangely structured to begin with. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A heads up

I imagine, as Alex Kingston has been listed as a star along with Smith and Coleman in The Name of the Doctor's episode poster (surely she won't be in the titles??), there will be some edits insisting she should be considered a companion in the episode. Can we pre-emptively agree to leave her in the "others" section at least until broadcast? (Unless, of course, an undeniable source presents itself in the meantime.) U-Mos (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait until broadcast. (I'm a bit sceptical about the need to have episode pages 1 month+ in advance) It is curious though - she wan't named on the poster for The Angels Take Manhatten. If she is promoted to officially having a starring role it might just reflect her agent doing a better job :P It's not unprecedented - Rory was a guest star through "The Big Bang" and Barrowman, Cribbins and Simm all got a promotion to star billing subsequent to their first run of appearances. Eshlare (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was all "she's back to being a guest character" in Angels, her big story was over, it was lovely and neat and simple, and now... Moffat! *shakes fist* U-Mos (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to make a comment here, decided against it, then scrolled down my newsfeed on Facebook and saw a big cover for DWM. Can I just ask - is there anything we could do to try preemptively nipping the bud of speculation by anon IPs on the Doctor Who articles in light of the announcement of the finale's title? Or am I being overly cautious? Comics (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So far there hasn't been any problems, but considering that there's probably a whole lot more that meets the eye (we have no idea of the plot) and there is hardly any production information yet (as typical of finales), I wonder if it really needs to be an article yet. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

An update: I did remove a mention of a monster and a location because it wasn't sourced. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A user has left the building

I've got some sad news for the project: Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a member of the WikiProject, has been driven off of Wikipedia due to issues with an abusive editor. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. This is a real shame. There seems to be an uptick in this recently. D will be missed. MarnetteD | Talk 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, it looks like he's baaaaaack!! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Another heads up

Tonight's episode "Hide" introduced a new pronunciation for a planet first mentioned in the third Doctor's time. What was Met-e-bee-lis became Met-e-beh-lis. I don't know if we have the pronunciation laid out in any of our articles but if we do we are going to have to allow for the two different pronunciations. Of course those of you who live in the UK found this out several hours before I did and you may have already taken care of things or this may not be a problem at all but I wanted to mention it just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that. For most Jon Pertwee stories, I read the Target novelisation some years before seeing the actual stories on VHS (or occasional TV repeat), and for non-English words, I had often formed my own idea as to pronounciation, and only found out the "proper" pronounciation some time later". One such was "Metebelis", where I gave all three "e" the same length; and interestingly, Matt Smith's pronounciation of "Metebelis" was pretty much the same as what I had used. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tom Baker never figured out how to pronounce Gallifrey, so I don't see why this is too much of an issue. If any source ever pops up as to why Matt pronounced it differently (e.g. if he had difficulties reading the lines using Pertwee's pronunciation) then that would be an interesting inclusion, but otherwise there's little to say I think. U-Mos (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Radio Times review mentioned that he did pronounce it differently, but nothing production-wise. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies everyone. I was concerned that if we had a parenthetical phonetic description somewhere (see Toupée for an example) that we might wind up with an edit war but it doesn't look like that is the case. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack article names

Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 3 (album)
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 4 (album)
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 4 (The Specials)
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 5 (album)
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – A Christmas Carol (album)
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 6 (album)

These pages have been recently moved to these titles, adding the (album) to the article name (except for the specials whcih puts "The Specials" in parentheses for some reason. I think the (album) is unnecessary disambiguation in the article - I tried moving them back to what they were, but I cannot. - Can someone help with this?

Personally, I think these should be changed to Doctor Who - Series 3 (Soundtrack), etc. as that's how they're marketed by Silva Screen, but wanted to see what others felt here before movign them there Etron81 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I know why they were moved - the person who moved them was trying to change the dash from - to –, which is correct. However, they would have been unable to do so. They should have requested page deletion from an admin. I am one so can complete the moves to remove the unnecessary disambiguators. Other than that, I can't comment on the titles. –anemoneprojectors– 10:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now moved the pages to remove the disambiguators. –anemoneprojectors– 10:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Etron81 (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Producers

Done a random check to see if the producers of recent series were named correctly (a clue: they weren't), so could a project member just have a look over to make sure it's all accurate? List of Doctor Who serials, Doctor Who (series 6) and Doctor Who (series 7) were edited, along with some recent episode articles that seemed to suffer from a copy/pasted infobox introducing false information. So, as I understand it now:

• In series 6 Marcus Wilson produced all episodes except for "A Christmas Carol", "The Doctor's Wife", "Night Terrors" (all Sanne Wohlenberg) and "Closing Time" (Denise Paul). He is credited as series producer in "Closing Time" only, as he joined the production team following Wohlenberg's temporary stint.
• In series 7 Wilson produced all episodes broadcast in 2012. Denise Paul produced "The Bells of Saint John", "The Rings of Akhaten" and "Nightmare in Silver" only (despite what the episode articles for "Cold War", "Journey" and "The Crimson Horror" read until I just changed them). We do not yet know who produced "The Name of the Doctor" (or the 50th special).

All correct and clear? U-Mos (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, it seems that the episode poster for "Cold War" at least was incorrect (as proved by the broadcast), which may account for the mis-information. "Journey"'s poster is also contradicted by the BBC's programme information and its episode page on the Who site, and The Crimson Horror is likewise contradicted by the BBC's programme information (sourced on the episode page). Can we agree that the latter source is more reliable?

And so, as I understand it, The Name of the Doctor's poster is currently the only source for the episode's producer (it names Denise Paul). Do we put that in unless proved otherwise, or do we just consider the posters to be unreliable in that respect and wait a week for the programme information to clarify? I've removed the producer from the infobox in the meantime. U-Mos (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely go with the credits. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Series 7 numbers

Now I'm not necessarily against this, but I don't really think there was enough discussion to constitute a consensus to switch to considering "The Bells of Saint John" as episode six, "Akhaten" as seventh etc., thus excluding "The Snowmen" from the series 7 count. Obviously the DVD packaging does provide a strong argument for doing so, but I still think it warrants a proper discussion. I would mention also that to my mind Template:Doctor Who episodes (view it at Asylum of the Daleks et al) looks mighty odd with "The Snowmen" placed out of order with the previous Christmas special at the top, and believe that that at least should be amended. U-Mos (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the DVD of the whole series (which won't be released until November) may determine it, as it usually has numbering in the selection screens. Way back when, the series was called "14 episodes", so I think that should at least be reflected and put in chronological order between "Angels" and "Bells". "The Snowmen" does seem really strange at the top, but at the same time it is a Christmas special too. Maybe a note? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Radio Times has episode numbers. Tonight's is shown as 10/13, i.e. episode 10 in a series of 13. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've retrieved some back issues.

• "Doctor Who". Radio Times. 30 March-5 April 2013. p. 62. 6/13 Series 7. The Bells of Saint John {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Doctor Who". Radio Times. 6–12 April 2013. p. 52. 7/13 Series 7. The Rings of Akhaten{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
• "Doctor Who". Radio Times. 13–19 April 2013. p. 54. 8/13 Series 7. Cold War{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
• "Doctor Who". Radio Times. 20–26 April 2013. p. 54. 9/13 Series 7. Hide{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
• "Doctor Who". Radio Times. 27 April-3 May 2013. p. 54. 10/13 Series 7. Journey to the Centre of the Tardis {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)