Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Trainspotting

In light of the setting of this week's episode, I thought I'd bring up something that's been bothering me for a while. An awful lot of edits these days get reverted with the edit summary "trainspotting" or the like. While I generally understand what's meant by the term (trivia which is of interest only to devoted fans), I'm not sure that using "trainspotting" alone as a reason for deletion of sourced material is completely appropriate. I'm specifically thinking of edits like this — though I'm not meaning to target Mezigue specifically, as this tendency has become very widespread and I could easily find other examples. In fact, I'll ping DonQuixote, Masem, Edokter and G S Palmer, because I've seen them all use the term in edit summaries. I'm not necessarily objecting to specific edits here, but to the use of "trainspotting" as a justification — particularly when it is the sole justification given.

My concern is twofold: first, that in our zeal to avoid the accumulation of trivial fancruft, we may be removing sourced material which is potentially relevant to articles' subjects and of interest to readers. (In this particular case, it's possible that a reader who has seen the episode may wonder whether the Doctor's dueling ability had been previously demonstrated.) Second, I'm concerned that if we are reverting edits without referring to valid Wikipedia guidelines, we may scare off potential contributors who may perceive the reversions as arbitrary. If we revert a problematic addition as "unsourced" or "original research", then presumably it could help the contributor learn about WP:RS or WP:OR and why they are important. If we revert the same edit as "trainspotting", we merely say "we don't like this sort of edit" and don't really explain why. That may come across as "scram, kid, we don't want your sort". It's unnecessarily pejorative, especially in cases in which the same edit can be justified by Wikipedia policy or guideline.

Does anyone care to defend the use of the term? Have I missed a discussion somewhere about "trainspotting" as a problem? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Trainspotting is, to me, obvious details that would not necessary require a source to someone familiar with the source material and without indepth knowledge of production (the xth time someone has happened, the fact that a previous detail was mentioned in an earlier episode) - that is, it is not original research and would qualify as allowed under WP:SYNTH - but that to any one else that is outside of the fandom, seems like trivia and can bloat an article, particularly for DW which is continuity heavy. And as per WP:TRIVIA we should not include it unless that fact is sourced to a third-party (or in some cases, production notes) to show that it was intentional or interesting to others. I will not outright delete these as trainspotting if there is a valid source but there still may be other reasons to remove. I do agree that the above edit is not one that should have been removed outright under "trainspotting" (the BBC fact file does state this fact) though whether it needs to be included begs the question and should be discussed. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, my userspace essay on the term, written some time ago: User:Masem/Trainspotting. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, I am nearly 100% certain that I've never used the term. I do agree that it is used a lot, though, and would probably be better if people used a more descriptive term. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least once (though again, I don't disagree with that particular edit). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I use the term as shorthand for "obsessive record of details". It is not meant to refer to a particular policy of Wikipedia, but rather to describe the (poor) motive for adding the stuff in the first place. I suddenly realise now you bring it up that this is a very British term of phrase not necessarily understood in this sense elsewhere and for that reason perhaps it is not a good idea to use it on Wikipedia. (I must put my hand up and admit that I am often lazy in filling the Edit summary field). The problem with the addition of random details, even when they are sourced, is that like with fly-tipping you know where it starts but not where it ends, and Doctor Who topics in particular tend to attract slightly obsessive behaviour, as evidenced with the monumentally pointless table on List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. To return to the example of fencing for instance, where I removed a list of other episodes when the Doctor fenced, I don't think the fact that it might interest someone is good enough reason to include it, as there are fan sites and forums and wikias galore to cater for that level of trivia. With closing in on 250 episodes, the possibilities for cross-referencing of this sort are simply endless. As it happens, the BBC has started putting up pages for new episodes which contain plenty of that sort of thing. We are going to have the entire content of these pages paraphrased on Wikipedia if we are not careful. Just because something is sourced does not make it suitable for inclusion - there are other criteria. Mezigue (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The unfamiliar with the term is why I wrote that essay (though as an American, I think the term is common place thanks to Trainspotting the film :)) even though I've never pushed for it to be in userspace. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ppresumably if you're happy for it to be at WP:TRAINSPOTTING (since it appears that several other people are using the term in the way your essay describes), then people using the term could easily wikilink to it as part of their edit summaries, thus making such summaries clearer. Hopefully people would resist the temptation to use this as an excuse to make such edit summaries shorter at the same time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As an American, I was familiar with the base meaning of term, though not necessarily with all of its connotations. (That said, I was not familiar with "fly-tipping"). I'm not sure that there's anything intrinsically wrong with having the BBC's "fact file" pages paraphrased on our episode pages, but then I lean towards inclusionism and I recognize that others prefer a more discriminating approach. I agree with Masem that inclusion by a third-party source is a good gauge for whether something is too trivial to merit a mention; the question then would then become whether the BBC's "fact file" pages are, in fact, third-party. If a reviewer in a mainstream publication mentions a continuity connection, I think we can agree that it's of sufficient non-fan interest to include in the article. (By the way, those "fact files" are essentially the same as the "Fourth Dimension" pages which the BBC has been putting up for every episode of the series since 2005, so they're not really a new thing.)

But there are two issues here: what our threshold is for inclusion of "continuity" matters (and I agree that we've got to be careful and clear on this), and whether "trainspotting" is in itself a legitimate reason to remove material. I'm just concerned that sometimes "trainspotting" is being used as a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That should be considered before moving Masem's essay to the Wikipedia: namespace. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't familiar with those Fourth Dimension pages. The question of whether this is a third party source is an interesting one. The BBC's commercial interest is to attract the attention of viewers to older episodes, most or all of which can be purchased one way or another, hence endlessly referring to those episodes on the flimsiest excuse. As for the word trainspotting itself, yes it's a very British thing. It taps into the stereotype of the British male's difficulties to socialise and need to fill his life with something else instead. (Someone who is intensely knowledgeable about the minutiae of a topic is also often nicknamed an "anorak" because trainspotters wear anoraks and similar garments to keep warm on train platforms...). As I said, I am happy to drop the use of the term if it causes confusion or controversy. Mezigue (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC Genome

The BBC recently launched their Genome, an online database of listings from (almost) every issue of the Radio Times, back to 1923.

We should add a link to each article on an individual episode, using {{BBC Genome prog}} as I did in this edit for episode 1. Note that the link is to the entry for the first screening. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily accurate/finalised though - the Beeb is crowdsourcing corrections to the listings.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Apart from minor OCR typos, the only issue is where programmes were not shown as scheduled; which should already be noted in our articles, in such cases. And, of course, we and our readers can submit corrections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious redirect

Hello all. I stumbled on this curiosity today. The link for Abslom Daak goes to a reference totally unrelated to this Dalek fighter from the comic strip of days gone by. I have no idea how to hunt for how this happened and I would be interested to find out about it. I just wonder what sort torturous set of redirects occurred for the link to wind up going to a reference about Sam Anderson playing Danny Pink. Thanks ahead of time for any help and information that any of you can provide. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand: there's more detail above than in your initial post at User talk:Redrose64#If you have a moment. It's not taking you to a reference; what happens is that the browser takes you to the proper place - the section heading - and then the navbox at the top of List of Doctor Who supporting characters#Companions collapses and pulls the rest of the page upwards so one of the refs ends up top of the screen. It doesn't behave like this in all browsers, but it does in Firefox. Assuming that you do use Firefox, press F6 then ↵ Enter, you should go to the right heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That works. I always forget that different browsers can cause odd things to happen. Probably because this is the first time that anything like this has happened to me - well at least since I switched to Firefox :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Who eyes

After gazing upon this http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-11-23/doctor-who-50th-anniversary-special-features-surprise-double-cameo-appearances from Radio Times, and of course the feature itself from The Day of the Doctor, I've put together a category of free-use-images, at:

commons:Category:Doctor Who eyes

Enjoy,

— Cirt (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently-deleted Template:Infobox Doctor Who book

{{Infobox Doctor Who book}} was recently merged into {{Infobox book}}, which mainly involved a bot going around making edits like this, and it was deleted after the merge (see this TfD). To facilitate the merge, a new |release_number= parameter was added to {{Infobox book}}, but this has proved controversial. See discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#Proposed addition of a release_number parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Big Finish audio at AFD - could do with better sourcing

A user has nominated a number of Big Finish audio dramas for deletion on the perfectly reasonably grounds that they had no sources showing notability whatsoever. It might be an idea to check all of those articles and add sources as a preventative measure - preferably mainstream ones with editorial oversight. Artw (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Artw:What do you mean by CHRCK? Was that a typo? — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Heh. That was a typo, unless I accidentally involved an old and forbidden Wikipedia acronym. Artw (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Transclusing individual series' pages to List of Doctor Who serials

There is talk on Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Sublists of Episodes to replace the current list tables in the article with the templated episode list transcluded directly from the series' pages (ie. Doctor Who (series 8). The most cited reason is that all other episode list use this construct. However, I think this is a bad idea for this episode list, mostly because this list is huge, and all information within has been condenced to the most essential. In contrast, the individual series' pages have much more information that will only clutter the list of serials even more. More input is welcome. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Personally I belive that the includes of viwing figers and ai numbers in the episode list makes it easer to comper this info across multiple seris also it is simpler whith regards to minsodse as they are all in the other story's rather than the courant setup wher some like ps and night of the doctor which wher online and/red buton are in the episode list while dimensions in time Which was bro cast but is not genraley regarde as canon is in the other storeys so even if the subsists are not add then I think that onley full leth episodes be listed out Sid of the other story's it is also of not that night of the doctor only fetters the 8th and war doctors but not the 11th doctor who it is listed under in aney way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

GA article discussion about Quote boxes

WP:GA article From The Doctor to my son Thomas had a couple quote boxes at time of promotion to GA quality.

Now there's a discussion about use of those quote boxes.

Please see discussion, at Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas#Quote_boxes.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Companion navbox overhaul

Hey all. I raised this some time ago at Template talk:Tenthdoctorcompanions, but it didn't get much traction there and another editor suggested I bring it here. I think that the navboxes for each Doctor's companions, in their current state, are very bloated, messy and in need of a serious update. For example, the Tenth Doctor companions template as it stands now:

For what should be a simple set of links between related pages, it's staggeringly complex, attempting to convey far more information than a navbox was ever designed to do, in a way that actively makes navigation more difficult. (My full argument, along with some rebuttals to it, can be seen at the link above.) This is the replacement navbox I propose (though of course input is more than welcome):

I would propose making similar modifications to all the other companion templates. Under the current setup, the Eighth Doctor's companions are in a particular mess, with no less than four large navboxes for a handful of articles, and with the "TV companions" navbox absurdly consisting of a single relevant article!

My proposed replacement for the above (again, just a guideline, refinements could be made but this is the general structure I think is best):

I think these changes would improve the navigation and aesthetic value of the templates significantly, as well as bringing them in line with WP:NAVBOX, many of whose rules they currently break. —Flax5 23:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather than bloat up this page with alternative versions, it would be better to sandbox them. That is (considering only the first), create Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions/sandbox as a copy of Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions, and amend as necessary. If it is desirable to show the two together, do so at Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions/testcases. The same can be done for the others that you have mentioned. More at WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Flax5 14:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Flax5: your amended navboxes look like a great improvement. I would support making your suggested changes. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in support. Eshlare (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some of them may look bloated, we can't help it if the 10th has so many companions. But those are the exceptions. And with regards to being a navbox... they actually arent. They don't use the navbox template, only the associated CSS; they are actually tables organising the companion's tenures, but they double as navboxes. Removing the tabular format removes a lot of information. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that navigational templates and informational tables should be combined. From a navigational perspective, all that excess information is a major obstacle (not to mention all the guidelines it breaks, such as not being concise, linking to articles outside its scope, using easter egg links, using unlinked text, linking repeatedly to one article, and linking to individual sections of an article). From an informational perspective, they suffer from awkward and unintuitive positioning – I doubt many readers who are researching Sarah Jane Smith will head straight to the bottom of her article to start opening collapsed templates.

Most of the extra information stored in these templates can be found in the Companion (Doctor Who) article, including their names, the seasons in which they appeared, their first and final story, and the number of appearances they made with each Doctor. The list in the article has the additional benefits of listing their full names, as well as the names of the actors. The only information missing here is the exact combination of companions in any given story, which I doubt will be important to many readers – if it is, their first stop will surely be the story's own article.

I wouldn't mind preserving the tables themselves somewhere, but the list in the companion article makes them nearly irrelevant in my view. —Flax5 14:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The simpler boxes look infinitely better.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Support the navigational boxes sud onle Lincoln the campions on tv and in spinof for each doctor rather than tring to give a perspective of eache commons tener with the sires as this just makes them needlesley confusing for readers it may also be werth noting that the doctor who wiki tardis data cor already operates using a format similar to the one segested for compinon nab box sers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.76.31 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have settled with the majority of editors in favour of the idea– shall we move forward with the changes? —Flax5 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Flax5: I suppose you might as well. It would have been nice if a few more users had weighed in, but that's the way it goes. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

...I realize I'm late to the party, but the old version was way better. I found them incredibly useful. At the very least all that table information ought to be copied somewhere and not just thrown away. 74.192.36.96 (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd commented on this somewhere already, but I'm for the stripped down templates. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is all the table information at least going to be relocated somewhere. Seriously somebody must have spent days putting all that together, it's useful information and it's pointless to throw it all away. 74.192.36.96 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's in the history, so if anyone ever wants it, they know where to find it. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much all the table information, plus a lot more, can be found at Companion (Doctor Who)#List of companions. —Flax5 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Arc of Infinity

We need attention at Arc of Infinity, where an IP is reverting two others (self included). One of the passages is a BLP matter, and the sources that they are using are blogs. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Input request

Please see this thread Talk:The Mind Robber#Wendy Padbury and Bernard Horsfall reunion in Davros was deliberate from Big Finish. Any and all input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Quotation marks in article titles

Articles on the eighth series episodes have <q>...</q> quotation marks in their titles. This is not generally accepted throughout Wikipedia, and is not even general practice in articles on Doctor Who episodes. An RFC on whether or not it should be failed to gain any traction. So… those tags should probably be removed, no? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are no <q>...</q> tags in that article. The episode titles are enclosed in double quotation marks, "...", which is not at all the same thing, and is normal practice for episode titles in Wikipedia. Also, why do you single out Series 8, when all the other series listed on that page have quotation marks of precisely the same style? The quotation marks are produced by Module:Episode list; it's the line title_string = title_string..'"'..args.Title..'"' --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to each episode’s articles, e.g. Deep Breath (Doctor Who). Sorry for the confusion. The article for each series 8 episode uses <q>...</q> in its DISPLAYTITLE. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just after the {{DISPLAYTITLE:<q>Deep Breath</q> (''Doctor Who'')}} it has a HTML comment; the link in that now relates to this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is where the RFC I mentioned failed to gain any traction. I wouldn’t be averse to another attempt to have WP:AT and the MOS recommend it, but if there’s no project-wide support for doing it, it’s simply not a thing that we’re doing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an experiment; the <q>...</q> tag has been whitelisted very recently, and I want to explore it's use. I found that titles that are usually enclosed in double quotes in running text are the perfect candidate. This has not been explored before, so any argument stating that it's "just not done" is void to begin with; it couldn't been done before. There is also no policy (yet) governing the use of these tags. Sometimes these thing just need to be done before gaining any traction. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn’t sandboxes and userspace pages be more fitting for an experiment? I thought experimenting in article space was generally discouraged. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a technical experiment, but more of a social one. This is markup, and there is some leeway in experimenting in articles, as long as it is not disruptive in anyway. Sometimes the best way to test ideas is to just do them (while pointin to the relevant discussion). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I’m afraid this experiment has failed. Where it wasn’t met with resistance, it wasn’t met with welcome either. If you wanted to take it upon yourself to add quotes to every title you could find, I’d be all for that and do the same; if not, we have these twelve(+?) articles displaying titles inconsistent with the rest of the encyclopedia, which is a problem. So basically, I’m asking for either a commit or rollback. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm letting it stay for now. If only to entice future debate. Obviously I can't change the multitude of article names all by myself. Inconsistency is not a valid argument either; all change introduces some degree of inconsistency, and even then, many WikiProjects have deviations that are inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, which are perfectly acceptable. If you have objections, support them with arguments. Don't just state they should go simply because there is no precendent; that is a self-referential argument. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But it’s not “change”; it’s an aberration that, as far as I can tell, is not supported by the community. If you wanted change, you’d be pushing for it to be encouraged in policy, and you’d be enacting it in multitudes of articles (what’s stopping you? If you see something wrong, FIXIT) and encouraging others to. As far as I can tell, it’s just kinda sitting there, stagnant in its little corner. I’m not saying it should go because there’s no precedent; I’m saying it should go because no one seems bothered to set one. I’m saying it should go because the community does not support it. I’m also daring you to prove me wrong, because it’d be a nice change to see minor work titles properly displayed in quotes. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why don't you support me? Your only argument so far is "because, process". I won't accept that. Sure, I can keep pushing the issue, but I know I can't get universal support by discussion alone. I'd much rather it grows naturally. So just let it stay, wait for other to comment and engage in discussion. Hopefully with arguments that have merit. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I said already, if you actually did anything with it I would support you, at least until we were able to get a sense of the consensus (hopefully positive) regarding it. But you’re not. You’re the only one pushing for this, and you’re not. Some time ago you reacted almost violently to the suggestion that we start a wide discussion about it (“Let’s start an RFC?” “No! No no no!”). You don’t act like you want anything more than this spot of inconsistent style. And that, I oppose. That’s why I posted here about it. If it apparently doesn’t matter to anyone besides you after several months (anyone else wanna reply?), and if it doesn’t even matter to you enough to try and get the question some real visibility, then what’s it even doing there? Just put it back the way the rest of the entire encyclopedia has it, unless you’re willing to involve the rest of the encyclopedia. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize I’m sounding harsh here. I’m sorry. It’s just… this is pointless if you just leave it there and wait for someone to give it a point. Change is disruptive. If there are no serious objections to it, be disruptive. Make the change everywhere that you sensibly can. Others will pick up on it and either embrace it or reject it, and either way, there will be something happening. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"anyone else wanna reply?" I support the use of the <q>...</q> tags, and I also agree with your suggestion that there should be a push to make them more widespread. It's not much of an experiment if edits adding the tags don't start showing up on watchlists all over the encyclopedia. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: When making edits like this, please make sure that you use the correct link - as I noted above, it's no longer Archive 47, but Archive 49; and the section heading is slightly different. In addition, for the link to work, the angle brackets need to be encoded: [[Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 49#Quotation marks in article titles using .3Cq.3E tag, redux]] --Redrose64 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this at this time. Also it violates WP:TITLEFORMAT. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the part I want to discuss. I for one do not follow your interpretation, because the quotes are markup, not actually part of the title. Also, in a discussion on wether to use these tags, it is pointless to point out policy; it is the same as saying: "You can't legalize pot, because pot is illegal". And the old discussion gave no consensus either way. So beside policy, any other arguments we can exapnd on? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So how do you legalize pot? By changing the law. So why don’t you want to talk about changing the relevant policies and guidelines? Also, the question of consensus is critical. If there’s no consensus for it—if the community does not want it done—we shouldn’t do it. But as far as I know, we don’t know what the consensus is or would be, so we need more discussion and/or more action. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, italics are not part of the title either, but TITLEFORMAT addresses those. No reason it shouldn’t talk about <q>...</q> if that tag’s use is acceptable. But it doesn’t. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: You do not get to demand action on my part by threatening to undo past work! I did make a start, and I started a discussion. I was bold enough, and some ohter followed. Now you demand from me to risk being disruptive. I am not going to do that. If you do support the quotes, you can do that yourself... but you never get to demand that from other and attach conditions to it! -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It wasn’t a threat. It’s standard practice. I can appreciate your reasons behind adding quotes to a few titles, but if that’s all you did, then all you did was introduce some inconsistent formatting. If it becomes consistent, then that’s great; but if not, it should be reverted. Insisting on retaining the quotes in this small corner would be disruptive in the manner of WP:POINT, rather than the constructive disruption of WP:BOLD changes. Not to say this kind of boldness is the best way to go about it either, but that seems to be the path you’ve chosen. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So back to the question… Is anyone (other than the editor who added them) in favor of these twelve articles having quotation marks displayed in their titles while articles for other TV episodes, songs, short stories, etc. do not? Or are quotes being added to other articles too? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this is WT:WHO, we can't speak for the rest of Wikipedia. So I asume this question applies to WikiProject Doctor Who? In the mean time I'll see if I can set up an RfC (on a separate page that is not in the danger of being archived). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Before this link war goes any further, link to Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags. The RfC is there now. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

... with three days left to run. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I extend this? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's determined by the very next datestamp following the {{rfc}}, in this case 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC). What I would personally do is to alter the line

—[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

to

RfC extended by ~~~~; originally started by —[[Special:Contributions/174.141.182.82|174.141.182.82]] ([[User talk:174.141.182.82|talk]]) 17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your timestamp needs to go somewhere before the original timestamp, so that Legobot (talk · contribs) will see it as the effective starting time of the RfC, but if you put a new timestamp right at the start, the text copied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming won't be meaningful. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Legobot has recognised the amended end date for the RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to that set of articles

Since those quotation marks have been in place for over half a year without a consensus for them and with occasional challenges to them, and there’s no sign of a positive consensus in the RFC and related ongoing and prior discussions, should they still be there? I’d personally be in favor of a policy change to use quotation marks more consistently, but I’d oppose actually doing so until there’s more community acceptance, and absolutely reject doing it on an article-by-article basis. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And I want to continue as long as the as the RfC is running. I know you don't like it, but it is not you call alone. You seem to be the only one actually pushing to remove the quotes, and the only reason you cite is your dislike for inconsistency. Not a valid reason, so show some restraint and don't kill the discussion. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How would fixing those twelve articles “kill the discussion”? No one else in the discussion has even seemed to notice them. Please don’t assume bad faith. Inconsistency is one reason, yes, but also the fact that it was done (and continues to be) without any consensus—those quotes have not been accepted in the six months since their introduction. What purpose does it serve to insist on keeping them in spite of that? Do you think these articles are prominent enough that they give the discussions some traffic? If that’s the idea, then I’d suggest using some more visible articles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You would take away the live examples. A screenshot or something intangiable is not good enough, that's just "look but don't touch!" To get a real opinion, people have to be able to 'feel' the real thing so they can experiment with it (using personal CSS for example). I'm not removing them since there is no consensus in this project to do so; otherwise, they would have been remove long ago. Yo want to remove them? Get consensus to do so first. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User subpages are great for live examples, since you have near complete control over them. Article space is not, since it’s subject to constant revision. No one, myself included, is stopping you from creating subpages in your userspace to demonstrate the use of the tag, so please strike that excuse.

About consensus, how many editors have attempted to remove them over the months, and how many editors have reverted their removal? Are there more people for or against them? We also have to consider the possibility that calling it a “test” for so long stifled the normal editing process with a “look but don’t touch” mentality of its own. If there truly is no consensus regarding them, then it can wait until the RFC expires; but the burden of proof is on deviations from the norm, so please don’t demand a consensus for the norm. See also WP:NOCONSENSUS. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling WP:STATUSQUO here. And I removed the "test" part. As long as the RFC is running, they stay. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as others don't object. But I reiterate my request for you to strike the first half or so of that comment. User:Edokter/Quote Example or the like would have served just as well. —68.208.127.9 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What comment are you referring to? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The one immediately before I asked, "please strike that excuse." —68.208.127.9 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I will bloody well not strike any of my arguments. You may not agree, but you do not get to decide what arguments I may make. In fact, you only augmented them by stating a live article is "subject to constant revision", which is good, because that is what being "live" is all about. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop taking these things so personally. You’re right, I don’t get to decide what arguments you may make, which is why I asked you to strike a faulty line of reasoning. User subpages are just as live as article pages, and editorial decisions that may be considered controversial are magnitudes more stable on USPs. As it is, anyone could remove the quote tags from those episode articles and be well within his rights to do so, which would not be the case if you had used user subpages as examples. So no, removing the non-consensus edits from encyclopedia articles would not prevent you from having examples to point to; your insistence on exclusively using articles as something other than articles would. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. We each have our opinion. The quotes have been stable for over 6 months; if you want them gone, get consensus first, period. I don't know what else to say... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Stable aside from removals that you reverted. And they were marked as a “test” for much of that time, further discouraging activity. Anyway, why are we on this again after we settled it? I was taking issue with your “removing the quotes would ruin everything” logic, which completely ignored the possibility of using USPs. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, that was months ago, and I only added the first article; ohter editors added them to the subsequent episodes. You are still arguing to have them removed and I'm growing tired. Is this going to be one of these "I will claim consensus when the other party stops arguing" type of discussions? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed my 15 Jan 22:00 comment where I conceded that argument (despite the fact that I don’t think you quite understand how consensus works). Please read the surrounding comments more carefully. I’m arguing that USERSUBPAGEs would be ideal for your purpose and thus invalidate one of your lines of argument (the first three sentences of your 19:51 comment), which was why I asked you to strike it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are saying... and I don't care. Bottom line (again) is I am not willing to remove them unless there is consensus to do so, period. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankly seems more like you’re ignoring what I’m saying unless it seems like I’m trying to remove them. And there is a consensus, in policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I just don't want to be badgered. I heard you, I disagree, done. Also citing policy is moot; policy is behind on technical developments; that is why there is discussion, and a little 'disobediance' is expected (WP:IAR). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 00:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirecting 'The Doctor' to Doctor Who's 'The Doctor'

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

---

Currently 'The Doctor' does not link to the Doctor Who page instead it is listed as a disambiguation. A page which contains the term Doctor and 'The Doctor.

Most of 'The Doctor's are minor characters, with only a single paragraph retaining to them on a character list wikipedia page. As far as aI can see there are two prominent 'The Doctors'. The Other being The Doctor - EMH' from Star Trek Voyager. This character is big enough to have its own article, but in terms of popularity is nothing compared to 'The Doctor', I say at least 9 out of every 10 people will have heard of 'The Doctor - Doctor Who' and not 'The Doctor - Voyager'. One is a minor nor major character on a 6-year series of a larger franchise, the other is the main character of the longest-running and one of the most popular TV shows in the world and a character who has been played by over different 13 actors. In reality, 'The Doctor' almost always refers to Doctor Who, unless it is a Star Trek specific discussion.

I see no logical reason to have 'The Doctor' as a disambiguation. I propose linking 'The Doctor' to Doctor Who, and have a disambiguation link at the top for...

(1) Star Trek Voyager: The EMH Doctor and (2) Other uses of the name 'The Doctor' (all of which are minor characters). DocHeuh

Support: Reason - see above DocHeuh (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: The main character of Doctor Who is clearly the primary topic for “The Doctor,” if you ask me, even here in the US. I’m ambivalent on including a link to the EMH (a supporting character) or just linking to the DABpage. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I should clarify: I support redirecting to Doctor (Doctor Who), the article for the character, not Doctor Who, the article about the show he’s in. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Star Trek fans may well admonish you for stating the EMH is a mere minor character. This is the reason WP:DAB exists, and the current arrangment is in full agreement of that guideline. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak support with a hatnote atop Doctor (Doctor Who) pointing both to the disambiguation and the Trek character. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: 99% of people when hearing 'The Doctor' think of Doctor Who, because Doctor Who is a worldwide phenomenon and The Doctor is the main character. While Star Trek is also worldwide, Star Trek Voyager is almost the least popular series' and 'The Doctor' is if anything a 'secondary' character. It is only Star Trek fans who have heard of 'EMH The Doctor' and even then maybe only Star Trek Voyager fans. Dirac (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"...only Star Trek fans..."? You are kind of proving my point. We should not determin this based on fandom. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right not fandom, but general public popularity. When people say 'The Doctor', fan or not, they are almost always referring to Doctor Who because it is a world-known character. The EMH Doctor is not, it is therefore only known of, by Star Trek fans. It is like Ozymandias: the poem and the comic book character. Usually when referring to 'Ozymandias' people are meaning the poem. The comic book character of Ozymandias is known only by the fans of Watchmen. Hence directly linked to poem. Dirac (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say the same. As much as I’ve always loved Trek, non-Trekkies are much more unlikely to be familiar with the EMH than non-Whovians are to be familiar with the man in the blue box. Tangentially, I’ve not seen or read Watchmen or even know anything about the character, but that is what I associate with “Ozymandias”; the poem wins on historical significance though (as does Doctor Who). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support a huge fan of Voyager who was surprised to find this isn't the pipe of choice, no problem with hatnote. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - a try out of search for the term 'The Doctor' suggests to me that the guy in the blue box is the more common use of the term. though it was not that scientific. Curiously the 1991 William Hurt film came out as first choices in the image suggestions under Bing, though not Google. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support IF a hatnote is included at the top of the page to redirect to The Doctor (EMH). Vyselink (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

RESULT: Overwhelming support. Changed. DocHeuh (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You call five support !votes by Doctor Who fans "overwhelming"? I find it rather poor. Looking over the history of the redirect, this is not the first attempt to claim the term as the primary topic. There are at least 15 other articles that have "the doctor" as a title, as the main disambiguation page shows, some of them just as prominent as this one. If this is going to be discussed, it should be done at Talk:Doctor; the main disambiguation page. A wikiproject does not get to 'claim' a redirect. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be showing an obvious bias and personal agenda, seen not only on this discussion but on various other discussion on this page. The vote is 6:1 with the only oppose being yourself. Some of the votes are from Star Trek fans and in terms of other results for 'the Doctor' this has been discussed, this is by far the most prominent as you well know. When the page was originally redirected you asked for a !vote on THIS page. This has been completed with an 86% support. Or if you include my vote for support a 7:1 or 88% support. Now you want to refute this to have a !vote on a different page. You agenda is obvious. If anything this is the most appropriate page for the !vote. I will leave this !vote up for a view more days, until it reaches 2 weeks. Then the redirect will be fixed. DocHeuh (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Heuh0: Speaking of bias… it is inappropriate to hold that discussion on the Wikiproject Talk page for the franchise of the target page, arguably canvassing, especially if there’s no mention of it on the affected pages or other candidates. So, you know, glass houses and all that… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted the !vote on this page specifically at the request of User:Edokter, see: [1]. DocHeuh (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

While neglecting to inform anyone at the other pages concerned, is my point. But it’s taken care of. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor seems to be referring to another TV show called The Doctors [2]. There shouldn't be any issue though since that article is clearly marked as a 2008 TV series, and I don't there are any Dr. Who articles that could overlap. Might be something to be wary about with very similar named articles though just in case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As well as the multiple movies and series named “The Doctor,” the Doctor Who Doctor, and the EMH from Voyager. And the article about medical professionals. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked at the actual disambig and that's a lot of articles. Weighing that with the fact that this is an inappropriate and biased venue for such a broad ranging effect, a redirect would be a bad choice. If it were only two or three articles, then a redirect might be ok, but not with that many articles. The discussion should be occurring here Talk:Doctor after notifying relevant articles and get consensus there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You may have noticed, but I posted notification there, as well. And I don’t think I missed any possible WP:PRIMARYTOPIC candidates for “The Doctor,” and probably posted on a couple that are demonstrably not primary. But please do post anywhere you think I missed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was mainly agreeing with your above sentiments. Just going by the disambiguation talk page, it looks like some work needs to be done there if a redirect like this is going to be considered, such as whether "Doctor" and "The Doctor" should both be directed to that page. They're so similar that I'd rather see them on one page, but that's something for folks to get consensus on over there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don’t think that “work” is necessary if none of the other articles could be argued to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term “The Doctor.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ebyabe made that revert/request, not me. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this specific talk section Talk:Doctor#Propose_splitting_out_all_"The_Doctor"_terms.. If a redirect is going to occur as proposed above, the first thing to address before weighing notability of all "The Doctor"s would be have the two separate disambiguation pages (which I'm not sure is the best option). Basically, the above conversation about a redirect seems premature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah, that was proposed, wasn’t it. But since it went half a year without comment, it’s probably safe to assume there was no consensus for a split. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's mostly why I don't see a redirect flying at this time either. Just too much that needs to be done first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Nah, all that needs to be done is we get PRIMARYTOPIC consensus. Even if you think we should split off The Doctor (disambiguation) half a year after the idea was posed, changing a redirect from one target to another hardly disrupts that. Or were you referring to something more involved? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing the redirect is easy, getting the consensus is hard, and probably not going to fly; there are simply too many topics relying on this disambiguation page, including those having "the" in their title. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The “Doctor” disambig page would still be there if “The Doctor” (0 links from any articles) redirected somewhere else instead of there. If retargeting this orphaned redirect would cause some kind of disruption somewhere, I’m just not getting it. What am I missing? The only real concern I can see here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you quite understand why redirects exist; redirects should be orphaned. Their primary function is not to link to them, they are there to aid manual searching; any reader searching for the term "the doctor" is directed to the main disambiguation page, as we cannot predict what the reader is searching for. Having 15 article with that term also makes it unlikely that any of them can claim to be the primary topic. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So it’s just that you disagree that the Time Lord is primary for “The Doctor”? I disagree, but that objection makes sense then. It just sounded like you and Kingofaces43 thought there was more to it that there didn’t seem to be. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My concerns are the same as Edokter. I'm not sure where they mentioned anything about Time Lord, but the issue is simply that there are so many articles on the disambiguation page that are the result of searching for "doctor" and other similar derivations. There is no primary topic here (especially when we're talking about a TV show competing againsts other terms like physician, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The main character of Doctor Who, named The Doctor, is a Time Lord. Doctor (Doctor Who) has more information. And with respect, I think you misunderstand the meaning of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It does not mean it’s the only topic; it means that it can be reasonably assumed to be the one sought by that term (“The Doctor,” in this case, with the definite article and a capital D), and/or that it has more long-term significance than other topics associated with the term. For instance—to take your example—Physician is properly about the medicinal profession, but The Physician is about the primary topic for that name (a 1986 novel). Same goes for any other proper name starting with “The.” What with Doctor Who being ingrained in especially British pop culture for decades (note: I’m American, and it’s pretty well ingrained here, too), I’d argue that its main character satisfies both PRIMARYTOPIC criteria for “The Doctor.” It certainly couldn’t be argued that it’s not a candidate. And of course the page would include a link to the Doctor disambig page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The term Time Lord is irrelevant here. It's not part of the disambiguation page. We're going by what terms people use in the search box whether it's doctor or The Doctor that all lead to the disambiguation page, which is what the conversation should be based on at the moment, not a single term. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I explained the term because you seemed unclear about it. I used it to refer to the Doctor, nothing more. And if you’d read beyond that first sentence, I think you’d find that my comment was on topic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did read the rest of your post, which I what I was primarily commenting on. I thought you were including Time Lord as another relevant term in this disambig discussion, but it looks like I was mistaken on that bit. Just as an FYI, I have indeed watched the show quite a bit, so I'm familiar with the terminology. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It’s only been a couple days since we gave proper notice, but so far, the consensus still seems to be that the Doctor Who character is primary, with only Edokter and Kingofaces43 claiming no primary topic. Anyone disagree with that assessment? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. First, you claim primacy, but that is not up to this WikiProject. It should be discussed at Talk:Doctor (not just linking to here). And again, judging from the redirect's history, it won't stick anyway, as there is always someone to revert. So you need a rock-solid, non-local consensus. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikiprojects are not the place to determine consensus. Against general terms such as doctor, physician, etc. anyone trying to claim there is a primary topic from that disambiguation list is going to have an extremely tough time hammering out a consensus for just one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So shall we move this discussion to the disambig page’s Talk? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about making the change that would be the next course of action, but you would need to establish that there is a single primary topic amongst all the the articles at the disambiguation page as it sits right now and not just for the term "The Doctor". You're more than welcome to start a discussion there, but I'm just cautioning that it likely won't as straightforward of a task as you seem to think given the current list of articles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean, “not just for the term ‘The Doctor’”? That's the term we’re talking about redirecting. The only one. Not Doctor. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The dismabiguation page includes more terms than that though, hence needing to tackle all of them if they are going to remain. I'll post on the disambiguation page later tonight to clarify things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversation has been started on what the scope of the disambiguation page should be at Talk:Doctor#Propose_splitting_out_all_.22The_Doctor.22_terms.. After that conversation has wrapped up, that would be a good time to reassess the primary topic question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2015 (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.

Tom Baker Article

There is currently a discussion on the Tom Baker article's talk page between myself and another editor. Instead of 3RR'ing his most recent change, which I have already rvtd twice, I ask for some other editors to get involved so as to get some form of consensus either way on the subject. Thanks. Vyselink (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

cite serial

WikiProject Doctor Who may be the heaviest user of {{cite serial}}. I am in the process of migrating that template from {{citation/core}} to Module:Citation/CS1. Please contribute to the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#cite episode and cite serial and in particular at Help talk:Citation Style 1#cite serial.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman

Please see Talk:Jenna Coleman#Oswin vs Clara Oswin vs Clara, discuss there. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

New monster for series 9 posted on Den of Geek.

A photo of a new monster for the upcoming series has been posted on Den of Geek, it looks like a robot suit of armour.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Move request

In case anyone missed it: Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who)#Requested move 20 April 2015. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuity

Please see Talk:Death to the Daleks#Continuity section for a three-year dispute. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who video game template

Hi everyone,

The majority of my edits concern video games, that's why I stumbled upon Lego Dimensions, which will feature Doctor Who in some capacity. The {{Doctor Who video games}} was listed there, and I noticed that Dimensions was listed there right after the rest of the games. I wouldn't consider a game like Lego Dimensions a Doctor Who game, so I put into another group in the template. But now it looks kind of funky. I thought maybe the games could also be rearranged by Doctor, but I'm not too familiar with the Whoverse. Anyone want to try and give it a shot? Thanks! --Soetermans. T / C 08:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 9)

I noticed that "Last Christmas" appears in the list of 'episodes' as under Doctor Who (series 9) which struck me as odd. I'd assumed it would be listed as an appendix to series 8. I raised the point on Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_9)#Why_is_Last_Christmas_part_of_this_series and the discussion there makes me wonder if we aren't caught by a convention of our own making.
Due to transcluding each series list into the master list, the Christmas episodes have to be separately listed or included in one of the series listing. Now "Last Christmas" can't be part of Series 9 by the very definition at the top of the article which declares 9 to start in September (huzzah!) and for which recording started in January. So does it go in 8? But as AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs) points out the problem where are the "sources that it's officially put in Series 8?".
How do we resolve this dichotomy? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Last Christmas" aired 47 days after series 8 concluded, and 268 days before series 9 is scheduled to begin. I find it very strange that anyone would associate it more with the ninth series than the eighth. (Not that it's strictly part of either, to be clear, but if we have to group it with one or the other for tabular reasons, the best choice seems pretty clear.) —Flax5 07:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And then what of Christmas Specials like "The Runaway Bride", where there's 170 days between Series 2's finale and the special, and only 96 days between the special and Series 3's premiere? In this case, the special is closer to the later series than the earlier, which raises the question again: Does the special get placed with the earlier or later series, and what determines this? Alex|The|Whovian 09:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The BBC determines this. Their call entirely whether it makes sense or not. The difficulty is that the concept of series is becoming more fluid now that downloads and streamings replace DVDs and box sets as the medium of choice. Mezigue (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we just have to be brave and stick it (and possible apply the same principle to others that aren't reliably part of a series) in a section between 8 and 9. It's only a bit of table formatting, and not a technical obstacle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And result in 17 tables just for the series since 2005? I disagree. Alex|The|Whovian 11:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Invasion, The Runaway Bride and Voyage of the Damned have production codes which match the series they have been placed with. So I wouldn't expect them to be changed if that approach - which is but one possibility - is taken. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: A Christmas Carol has 2.x (although that's not in the article) linking it to series 6. Leaves only the The Doctor, The Widow & The Wardrobe and Last Christmas as possible standalones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Any more views/thoughts on the first point - whether Last Christmas belongs with series 9? Can we defend its position with sources? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, in each case where we have production codes for the Christmas specials, they're associated with the following series, not the previous one. However, the year the BBC stopped releasing production codes was the same year they shifted the series debut forward five months, from around April to around September. We have no way of knowing how "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" and "Last Christmas" were regarded internally, but they're positioned much, much closer to their preceding series than any of their predecessors were. Until the BBC says otherwise, I think those two episodes should be moved to the ends of their preceding tables. —Flax5 09:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If the DVD box set for a series includes a Christmas episode, that episode might be considered as part of the series that it's bundled with. For example, the DVD set "Doctor Who: The Complete Second Series" includes "The Christmas Invasion". Not all of them were bundled though: "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" wasn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to help us here – "Last Christmas", the other special we're having difficulty placing, was also given a stand-alone release. —Flax5 11:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm for keeping them where they are, but what about soundtrack releases? The music of "Last Christmas" was released with Series 8's OST (TD,TW&TW's music, however, was released with another Christmas special and not with a series). Alex|The|Whovian 12:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeat airings

A situation has arisen where several IPs are adding repeat airings of Classic series stories on various UK channels - I have seen Gold and Horror so far. Here is one example. I should also note these are unsourced but that isn't germane to my suggestion. Now, I acknowledge that some repeats have a degree of notability. IMO Ep 1 of An Unearthly Child being shown again on 30 Nov 1963, The Evil of the Daleks being shown between seasons five and six and the Five Faces of Dr Who repeats between seasons 18 and 19 are all worth a mention, especially since repeats were rare (non-existant?) in that era of the show. However since the advent of cable TV repeats on various channels occur all the time (Note: In the US this was the situation in many PBS markets right from the start) and are not unusual. I would suggest that a brief sentence or two be added to WP:WHO/MOS, possibly to the "Broadcast and reception" section, deprecating the mention of these modern day repeats. That way we can point these IPs to the relevant guideline to show why their edits are not useful. Any suggestions about the wording would be helpful. OTOH if enough of you disagree with this the suggestion can be dropped. Thanks to all for any input you have and only two months to new episodes! MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've spotted two IPs so far, 90.215.196.10 (talk) and 2.121.36.155 (talk) - I believe them to be the same person. But they're not just going for DW articles, so rather than WP:WHO/MOS it should perhaps be put in a general TV MOS page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Either way - or even both - is fine with me. MarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Specify it in this project guideline first (you have my support), then see if you can get rest of TV project to follow. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also 2.121.32.60 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman (II)

The issue described at Talk:Jenna Coleman#Oswin vs Clara Oswin vs Clara has flared up again. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Episode running time

I notice that some editors are nitpicking over episode running times, making up rules along the ways, which in turn triggers mass-edits (which are unsourced). I can foresee a massive edit war if this goes on, so I revert them on the spot. So let's be clear: the episode length is the length of the initial timeslot that is reserved for it, rounded to the nearest five minute slot. Barring discrepancies larger then five minutes during initial airing, they will remain that way. This has always been true for all episodic articles, and I don't see why DW is suddenly going anal about specifying exact running times to the minute. I know MOS:TV is silent about this, so perhaps this needs discussion. But I think that would be wasting too much energy. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On another episode times issue - the serials page needs updated. The intro says "Unless otherwise noted, the new episodes are 45 minutes long." - but the article then fails to note episodes that are 60 minutes (eg Christmas Invasion). Should he article be changed so that these are noted, or should the into be changed? 94.5.24.62 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

PS - this would also be true with the line for the original run: "Unless otherwise noted, episodes in this period are 25 minutes long" 94.5.24.62 (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.

The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

On Target fan site is gone

The University of Leeds' IT staff apparently did some housecleaning in August or September 2015 and deleted the personal home pages for students and staff who are no longer active. One item that was deleted was the "On Target - fansite" at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb/OnTarget/ which seems to have covered Doctor Who books. At present there are 191 links from Wikipedia to this database.^[3]

I found an earlier thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 28#On Target now a dead link where the site was a 404 on 26 August 2013 and back in business on 14 September 2013. That thread said the On Target pages had disappeared for a few weeks a couple of times. I suspect what happens is that the university notifies all users that they will be deleting the pages and give them some time to respond and state they wish to keep their page. Whoever owned ecl6nb must have been slow in responding a few times which is why the pages were deleted and then restored.

I did some hunting around but was unable to figure out the name of the student or staff member who had maintained the On Target pages. Their personal page would have been at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb I was looking for the name to see if Google could see if that person has moved their personal stuff to another host.

I e-mailed the university's webmaster to see if they could restore the content. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

it'd be more productive to see if the links are on archive.org. That would be a more permanent solution than hoping on the goodwill of the university which has no obligation to restore it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Tim Neal was the creator of the site apparently. At the moment the Leeds robots.txt file is blocking the Internet Archive from crawling it. (And the IA also interprets this as saying that it should not show results from any previous crawls that might have been permitted). If there is any answer from the university's admins, it would be good if they could restore the pages for a few days, and whitelist them on robots.txt, so the IA can make (and keep) a copy. Jheald (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I heard back from Leeds IT asking of the pages could be restored. "Sorry, no, the staff member left and we reclaim disk space once that happens. The information should never have been on our servers anyway." Thank you for recalling the person's name. I sent a friend request to Tim on Facebook to see if he has a copy or can ask Leeds for it to be restored. Unfortunately, FB got rid of the thing where you include a message with the friend request. We'll see if he accepts from strangers. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You can send messages on FB even if you're not a friend. On their profile page, use the Message thing just after + Follow --Redrose64 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How bad is this for article referencing? Are there any other websites dealing with the Target (etc) books, or even a book on the subject that we can use to replace lost references? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A possible replacement is http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Target_Books - Unfortunately, I don't think it qualifies as a WP:RS for Wikipedia. A better source is the book "The Target book : the history of the Target Dr. Who books" by David J Howe and Tim Neal (ISBN 1845830210)

So far there's been no response from Tim Neal . There's some good news in that Facebook will be getting rid of the "other messages" black hole.^[4] Once it seems the other messages feature has been removed I'll message Tim again. Unfortunately, it seems he very rarely uses Facebook. For those with Facebook accounts you can view your own "Other" messages at https://www.facebook.com/messages/other Ideally, Tim himself escapes from the Daleks and has a copy of the On Target pages that WP editors can then use to hunt down replacement sources if On Target itself can't be posted on line in a WP:RS way. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ian Marter needs RS

Ian Marter was gutted because of a lack of reliable sourcing? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Counter-productive reverting

On practically any Doctor Who article I edit, User:DonQuixote reverts my edits. Whilst he is sometimes right in doing so on reflection (Time and the Rani), most of the time he isn't, and it is only after a long discussion on his talk page does he back down and allow me to make the edit without it being reverted - The Impossible Astronaut being the best example of this. Current issue is whether to include Andrew Cartmel under "writer" for Survival, as Stephan Moffat is included in The End of Time.... Spa-Franks (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that I revert your edits because I think that they're unencyclopaedic?--and that I "back down" when you constrain yourself to encyclopaedic content (e.g. The Impossible Astronaut example above where the final edit is greatly different from you original edit).

As to Cartmel, he added one line to the end of Survival as script editor, while Moffat wrote an original scene for The End of Time and it was intended as such from the get-go. If you can show how this is wrong, please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't see the difference between Moffat and Cartmel here. It's not an edit to the script, it's an entirely new line that's put in and should be treated as Cartmel having written it: Munro had no involvement, just as Davies had no involvement. Cartmel's role as script editor was to edit existing scenes and lines, not write new ones altogether - the so-called Cartmel master plan is, for example, dropping "we" into Remembrance of the Daleks rather than "they". Spa-Franks (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is for quick information. Specific information, such as a single line being added because of production reasons, can be mentioned in the article proper. And script editors add lines all the time, so this really isn't an exception. As for Moffat, he wasn't the script editor (or head writer) for End of Time and they specifically mentioned how Davies intentionally handed the final scene off to Moffat, so it was intentionally co-written. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Was Cartmel credited as co-writer either in the opening titles or closing credits? If not, we don't credit him either. The fact is, virtually all of the DW script editors (from David Whitaker right through to Andrew Cartmel) added words or sentences to pretty much every story that passed through their hands. As the BBC didn't credit them as co-writers, nor should we. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

So why do we credit Moffat? It's really inconsistent. In any case, I didn't come here for a debate about Survival, I came here to criticise DonQuixote's modus operandii. It's not correct to be reverting everything unless proved otherwise: as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia works the other way round. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think that crediting Moffat for his one scene is fannish pedantry, then feel free to remove it. As for how Wikipedia works, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but an encyclopaedia with a focus on encyclopaedic content. Unencyclopaedic content is, by its very nature, counter-productive and can, and will, be removed. If you think that the removal was unjustified, then feel free to bring it up on the talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I always tend to operate under a process of not removing anything unless it's objectively unencyclopaedic. The sheer fact we are debating this shows it is not objectively unencyclopaedic. Your policy seems to be "revert first, ask questions later". Spa-Franks (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny that you mention that because I have to admit that I'm a very lazy editor and only remove those things that are unambiguously unencyclopaedic (that's also why I'm not making too much of a fuss on Moffat in End of Time because there's a little bit of ambiguity there). It's clearly fannish pedantry to include credit for a single line of monologue written in an infobox aimed at the general reader; it's also clearly fannish pedantry to include in-universe content (see Time and the Rani) in an infobox aimed at the general reader; etc. And what question should I ask in these instances? The bottom line is that the onus is on you and anyone else who wants to add material, otherwise Wikipedia will turn into an indiscriminate collection of unencyclopaedic information. DonQuixote (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't. On Survival, there is no difference between Cartmel and Moffat - they both write one monologue at the very end of the serial. There are a lot of 'uncredited' people in infoboxes on many Doctor Who serial articles, some of which are even GAs or FAs. On The Impossible Astronaut, I don't see how "after being shot by the astronaut" is objectively unencyclopaedic. The average reader would have gone "what is this thing in the photograph that isn't explained in the caption?" - how you couldn't see this initially is beyond me, so no, I don't think you do remove things that are unambiguously unencylopaedic, pedantic, fanboyish, et cetera, et cetera, otherwise you'd change the captions on Doomsday and Remembrance of the Daleks. You're not a lazy editor, just a "I don't want the page edited" one. For example, this edit on River Song and this edit on Tegan Jovanka is unnecessary, as it's not as off-topic and trivial as you think, and adds to the article from an out-of-universe perspective. Especially with Tegan, what is wrong with pointing out that she's the longest-serving companion? Remember, each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't have a firm opinion on Moffat. If you think that there's no difference between him and Cartmel, then feel free to remove him. As for Impossible Astronaut, that wasn't your original edit--it was "seemingly begins to regenerate". In the context of the article, there's no "seemingly" about it; he does begin the process. As for River, mentioning another character leaving in an unrelated episode is off-topic and trivia. And as for Tegan, it's policy that you need to cite a reliable source that considers it notable.

Again, the bottom line is that any and all edits can be assessed and even reverted/removed. If you think that the assessment is wrong, then show how it is wrong--by finding the proper sources, discussing on the talk page, etc. You can't demand that other editors not assess your edits. DonQuixote (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Redlinked cast members

We've got a user Theoosmond (talk · contribs) on a drive to eliminate red links, not by creating articles but by delinking, which goes against WP:REDDEAL. See User talk:Theoosmond#Redlinked cast members. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)