Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 31 December 2005 and 20 January 2006.

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

Archives

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

Boilerplate/Portal

By Tenchi's request, I have reworked the Doctor Who Project boilerplate to include the portal link. It can be found here. Please feel free to comment. --JB Adder | Talk 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the Doctor Who link within the text actually links to the portal now. Not that this isn't a more visible alternative, but just to note the duplication. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If we're revising the project notice, can we fix the CSS so it conforms with Wikipedia:Template standardisation and get rid of that annoying message that's at the top of the notice now? (I'd do it, but I haven't got a clue about CSS.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, what annoying message? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's seeing it? That's weird. On all the talk pages that have the {{WikiProject Doctor Who}} notice (and at Template:Doctorwhoproject) inside the box (above the police box picture) I've got a message saying, "The CSS for this template should be changed. See [[Wikipedia:Template standardisation]]". It's like that, too — the Wikipedia:Template standardisation isn't a link for some reason, just text. It's been that way for a few days for me — I just assumed that everyone was seeing it. I've seen that notice on a few other templates too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it at all. Try purging your cache? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Purged cache and restarted browser. Maybe it's a Safari thing? I haven't checked whether Firefox shows it or not. Anyway, I had a look at the list of project notices at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace#WikiProject specific notices, and about half of them have it. They're all templates that begin with " class="Talk-Notice" " instead of " class="messagebox standard-talk" ". If it weren't for you not seeing it, I'd think that it was just that the "Talk-Notice" template was being deprecated for some reason, but if other folks aren't seeing it then I'm baffled. I put two "messagebox standard-talk" versions of the project template here for comparison, based on the Chemistry example at Wikipedia:Template standardisation. Is anybody else seeing this message? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It is a Safari thing: the message doesn't show up in Firefox. Not that I have any idea why that would be, but at least it makes me feel slightly less insane. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I see it Safari too, so it's not just you.--Sean|Black 05:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It might just be me, but who tinks the portal graphic should be removed from the protalbox? (I just removed it from the one in my sandbox, if anyone wants to compare.) --JB Adder | Talk 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! Thanks very much, this make it much easier to navigate round the portal. Cheers. 80.1.224.12 19:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Tenchi Muyo

Image tagging: Image:Doctor Who Boardgame.jpg

Can someone knowledgable about fair use claims check this info I've provided for this image and see if it is sufficient. --TimPope 12:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an ad illustration, shouldn't it be {{promotional}}? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems appropriate, I changed it to that tag. Thanks. --TimPope 13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming Episodes

I would propose that all episodes be named in the same fashion. Right now some are "X", some are "Doctor Who: X" and some are "X (Doctror Who). I suggest "Doctor Who: X" is the most logical choice. Dyslexic agnostic 08:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The one that are "X (Doctor Who)" are one where something else at that title exists (Wikipedia:Disambiguation). There shouldn't be any at "Doctor Who:X", and if they're are should be moved straight away. I don't see why, when there is never going to be another The Horns of Nimon, we should bother with that.--Sean|Black 08:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

They only need to be disambiguated if there is some confusion and that's being done. When people look for episodes on Wikipedia they won't type "Doctor Who: The Christmas Invasion", they'll simply type "The Christmas Invasion". Secondly, the title isn't Doctor Who: The Christmas Invasion or Doctor Who: The Invisible Enemy, but simply The Christmas Invasion or The Invisible Enemy. Thirdly, disambigating is already being done as and when necessary where there is a possibility of confusion. At best, mind you, and I'm not supporting this suggestion, you should only put a "(Doctor Who)" suffix on the end of stories. Look at other projects like Buffy or Star Trek or Babylon 5. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and all that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratuitous insult. Of course, I forgot that wikipedia has been hijacked by scifi geeks and nerds. Do you think a real encyclopedia wouldn't properly associate the title of the series with any episode? Dyslexic agnostic 09:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Planet of Giants? Even worse, 'The Rescue? How can you justify these pages being hijacked by scifi geeks? Dyslexic agnostic 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, because the proper title of the story, for instance, is The Three Doctors, and the entry identifies itself as a Doctor Who serial. Also, referring to us as "scifi geeks and nerds" in such a clearly negative fashion is just as gratitous (not to mention the fact that he was quoting a proverb, and not talking about you personally).--Sean|Black 09:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with Planet of Giants? Is there another one out there that needs that page? It's standard to only disambiguate where necessary - so, for example, Margaret Thatcher's page is Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Thatcher (politician), even though some politicians will have that in parentheses after their name. --Whouk (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

"Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page."

To my knowledge there are no other topics that might share the name "The Christmas Invasion" or "Planet of Giants". There is an album called The Rescue by a band I've never heard of, and its page has a disambiguation link at the top of The Rescue. Rescue, without the "the", is what you would expect it to be, and other meanings are at Rescue (disambiguation). If the band Explosions in the Sky is more significant than I recognized, perhaps an argument could be made for moving its album to The Rescue and moving Vicki's debut serial to The Rescue (Doctor Who), but this should be (and is) done on a case-by-case basis. Wikipedia's standards are not to disambiguate when it's not necessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The full quotation is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." It's from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance". And as Sean says, it's a fairly well-known quotation, not a personal insult. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs)

Let's not fall into the same trap that our pals at WikiProject Buffy have got stuck in: every single episode of the series now has "(Buffy episode)" following it (eg. "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (Buffy episode)". As a result, the entire List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes took twice as long to type, and it looks a total mess when one has cause to edit it. NP Chilla 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a rather annoying part of the Buffy listings. No need to duplicate here. Essexmutant 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I have a lo of resouces for a number of things doctor who is one of them and plus becuase im a fan of him and i will do anything to keep this project going . please can you let me join? --Madcowpoo 18:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Please write in proper English and full sentences. Chatroom-speak e.g LOL U 2! Wtf do U tink about me? won't make you many friends here.
2. If you want to join, just put your name down! We'd love your help!

Best regards, --Jamdav86 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I don't know where to begin can the person in charge give me a job to do?

--Madcowpoo 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You can just edit whatever you want (Be Bold!). Have a look at Category:Doctor Who and it's subcategories for an index of articles related to this project. Thanks!--Sean|Black 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To expand on what Sean said: there is no one person "in charge" of the WikiProject (although khaosworks is its founder and guiding star). We don't have assigned jobs, either — what we do is look for things that need doing and either just do them (on the principle of "be bold in updating pages") or discuss it here if it's likely to be controversial (on the principle of consensus). You'll learn where the division is pretty quickly. My advice is to dive in and if you see something that's incomplete or inaccurate, fix it! And please don't get discouraged or upset if another editor comes along and either changes or removes what you've added — that's how we learn the boundaries on Wikipedia. Here are a few ground rules to keep in mind:

• • No original research. With regards to Doctor Who articles, this means that we can't include speculative theories about the nature of the Torchwood Institute, or the relationship between the Master and the War Chief. With regard to the "Doctor Who universe", it's best to stick to the facts as seen on-screen or recorded in officially licensed tie-in materials.
  • Pay attention to formatting. The WikiProject has developed a standard format for Doctor Who serials and episodes, and while not every serial's page is complete, the format is pretty solid. It's best to discuss major changes here or on the article's talk page before you make them.
  • Have fun!

Again, welcome to the project, Madcow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I must say he founder dose have a big history have any of you talked to him yet --Madcowpoo 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Look, he's not God! He's just a tireless contributor to all things Doctor Who. And yes, most of us have talked to him at some point. --Jamdav86 21:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

monsters

I've got some monsters and villans that don't appear in the monster or villan articles on this project should i add them in? --Madcowpoo 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! See List of Doctor Who aliens for our list, and feel free to edit! Thanks!--Sean|Black 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

doctor who aliens

Turns out you only have 2 not in your list i've added the morbius monster but im not sure where to put the 2nd one hes a villan, timelord and hes called the master

where should i put him?

--Madcowpoo 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Master (Doctor Who)? --Jamdav86 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

yes --Madcowpoo 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Mutants and the Time Monster

Been adding a few plot sections to Pertwee stories, including the two above - but they seem unique on DW serials on Wikipedia by not having images attached. As I'm aware of copyright rules on images and have none that would be suitable to add to either story, just thought I'd bring this up in case anyone else wanted to add an image to either story. --Litefoot 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC) yeah--Madcowpoo 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

history split

When you want the Doctor's history split up do you mean split the new series from the old?

and who dose the to do list any way?

--Madcowpoo 21:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To do list no 2

I think we should put our thoughts on this.look at number 2 on the to do list. --Madcowpoo 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

05 logo

i added the 2005 logo to the project page under the 1996 logo is this ok?

--Madcowpoo 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That's all right - thanks for doing that, actually. Originally the 1996 logo was there because it was being used for the project notice, but after we replaced that with a TARDIS, we forgot to change it. Welcome to the project. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

non-member page

We could make a page for the non-members

--Madcowpoo 00:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What sort of thing are you thinking of, Madcow? An "introduction to Doctor Who" or something, or an FAQ about the Doctor Who WikiProject in particular? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

we don't really have a menu so if a non member come along he can't see our work so if we make a menu they can see our work and hopefully they will join --Madcowpoo 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this appears at the bottom of many Doctor Who pages:

And every Doctor Who-related page has this at the top of its talk page:

And all the Doctor Who TV stories are listed at List of Doctor Who serials. Do you have something in mind that would be more than what these cover? Perhaps I should look at other WikiProjects and see if they have menus like you're suggesting. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

for the moment if i was you i'll add that doctor who page thing to the intro page becase at the moment you have to go on this page click a link and go there and then click on the page on th menu.--Madcowpoo 09:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up Category:Doctor Who serials

This one is an interesting suggestion, and given the size of the category, I'm in favour of it. We just need to create and slide them into Category:X Doctor serials. Any thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that we'd create Category:First Doctor serials, Category:Second Doctor serials, etc. as subcategories of Category:Doctor Who serials? Makes sense to me. The only question I can think of is how the three most recent Doctors should be listed: the Eighth has only one story (so I guess would have no category for him), and Eccleston and Tennant's stories probably ought to be in Category:Ninth Doctor episodes and Category:Tenth Doctor episodes. One advantage of doing this is that we could place these new subcats not only in the "Doctor Who serials" category, but possibly in a future "x Doctor stories" category, which could include pages for novels, audios, etc. (So Category:Seventh Doctor stories could contain Category:Seventh Doctor serials, Category:Seventh Doctor novels and Category:Seventh Doctor audios, each of which already have pages which could be included.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Question I would like to ask is, will there also be subcategories for various story arcs (namely The Key to Time and Trial of a Time Lord story arcs)? --JB Adder | Talk 06:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

These would be too small to justify sub-categories of their own (int he case of ToaTL, just four articles).

Would we put stories like The Three Doctors into the categories for all three starring Doctors? --Whouk (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Two ways - one is to classify them by the Doctor's era, i.e. Three Docs is Third Doctor, Five is Fifth, Two is Sixth... but I don't see a problem with placing them in multiple categories. I would draw the line at Doctors appearing only in bits of archive footage like in Earthshock or Resurrection of the Daleks, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

expanding on what jb-adder said on vairious stories they are 2-parters so like the empty child (1.empty child 2.doctor dances). so i was thinking of having any 2 parters or more as a subcatagory of the episode numbers so foe example: if there was a 2 parter episode hen it would show up like this episode 1&2 when the user click on i it tells you about each storie and the fact that its a (however many of parts it has) parter
--Madcowpoo 09:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) the link to the serials only goes to a catergory page on wikipedia so why don't we start makeing our own serial page when we've came to a conclusion in this dicussion.
--Madcowpoo 09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

so whats the final answer how are we going to split it up mr k ? --Madcowpoo 11:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to create a list, as List of Doctor Who serials already exists. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

then lets make a redirect to it --Madcowpoo 11:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Madcow, can you say a bit more clearly what you're suggesting? What is the redirect page you're saying we should create? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

this is for josiah rose when you click the serial link it goes to a catagory not direcly to the serials so i was surgesting to redirect the link directly to the serials

--Madcow 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Madcow, I'm still not getting it. What serial link, on what page? Of course Category:Doctor Who serials is going to take you to category page... and the first line on each story's page is "Planet of Terror (or whatever) is a serial in the British science fiction television series Doctor Who", where the word "serial" (or "episode", for the new series) is a link to List of Doctor Who serials. Maybe I'm just being thick here, but I still don't understand what you're suggesting. Also, it's helpful if you try to put responses underneath the part of the discussion you're responding to, rather than at the end. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As there was no objection to the splitting up, so I made the categories. I need some help to categorise all the articles in Category:Doctor Who serials. Thelb⁴ 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean there were no objections from editors who edit between 03:56 (UTC) and 16:09 (UTC) --TimPope 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops — I suppose we have been a bit hasty. Do you think we should slow down? (Thelb4 and I are working at it from opposite ends of the alphabet right now, but if you think we should wait for further discussion we can.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a rule of order should be that no changes are to be made persuant to discussions here until at least 24-48 hours have elapsed from the time the proposal is first made. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh. m:instruction creep, perhaps. Also, I was the one who added it to the to-do list in the first place, along with being a supporter in a previous discussion, so I hope it wasn't my lack of involvement that prompted any worries (maybe the only reason I get that impression is that I'm vain, however).--Sean|Black 07:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of further objection, I've continued recategorizing (obviously). Here's a question, though: should Mission to the Unknown be placed in Category:First Doctor serials? The Doctor isn't in it, and it's not a serial, so that's a bit weird. On the other hand, it's in the First Doctor's "era" and I suppose belongs in that category more than any other (unless we want to leave it in the parent category, Category:Doctor Who serials). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it in the First Doctor serials category as it's both part of his era and an integral part of The Daleks' Master Plan which fits in the subcat without a problem. --Whouk (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Done

I think that between Thelb4, Whouk and myself we've categorized all the television stories except the TV Movie (per discussion above). Category:Doctor Who serials still shows about 15 stories that shouldn't be there, but I think that's just server lag. Well done, fellows! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm still seeing ten stories on the Category:Doctor Who serials page that oughtn't be there. (They've all been recategorized, and the "Doctor Who serials" category doesn't show up on the pages themselves: see The Caves of Androzani or The Three Doctors.) Does anyone know why they might still be stuck in the old category? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a bug I've noticed before. Sometimes, purging the page (placing a &purge at the end instead of an &edit) helps. Othertimes, just delete the category from the page, save, then reinsert it and the server/whatever should pick it up now. Just did that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's weird. Thanks for fixing it, Terence. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Now that's done, let's talk about [[:Category: X Doctor audio plays]]... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No problems (books too, I should think), but this brings to mind another idea I had: [[:Category:X Doctor stories]] wherein we have the serials, novels, and audios for any given Doctor. Any good?--Sean|Black 07:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know. I can see where/how it might be useful, but somehow seems a bit redundant at the same time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a little redundant, and I wonder where it would sit in the the full Category:Doctor Who heirachy. Like I said, just an idea.--Sean|Black 07:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the redundancy, but at the same time I like the idea. I presume that [[:Category:X Doctor stories]] would be a parent category for [[:Category:X Doctor serials]], [[:Category:X Doctor audios]] and [[:Category:X Doctor novels]]. The question, of course, is how [[:Category:X Doctor stories]] would itself be categorized — we'd have to be careful to avoid category loops. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We could replace the current indivual media categories with this bigger parent one (so, as a subcategory of the main Category:Doctor Who).--Sean|Black 07:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So, you're thinking Doctor Who → Doctor Who stories → Doctor Who serials, Doctor Who novels, Doctor Who audios and First Doctor stories, Second Doctor stories, etc.? Thus, for a given story — say, Jubilee (Doctor Who audio) — there would be two paths up, Sixth Doctor audios ← Sixth Doctor stories ← Doctor Who stories ← Doctor Who or Sixth Doctor audios ← Doctor Who audios ← Doctor Who stories ← Doctor Who. ("Audios" could still be in "spin-offs" as well — I don't think that gives us a loop.) I feel like I ought to draw this on a big sheet of paper to make sure it makes sense! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

More or less- We have Doctor Who → Doctor Who stories, which then branch off by both Doctor and medium. Whatever seems best, really.--Sean|Black 08:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I like it, but we should probably wait for input from Tim, Paul, JB and other active project members before we do anything. Meanwhile, I suppose we can create the Category:X Doctor audio plays categories and start sorting the audios... but I'm going to sleep now, so won't be categorizing any more till tomorrow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Sleep...Those little slices of death. How I loath them." —Edgar Allan Poe

Or, perhaps, more relevantly...

"Sleep is for tortoises!"—Fourth Doctor

--Sean|Black

Technically, Doctor Who audios are serials too, since we've not specified that they are TV stories. Perhaps each [[Category:X Doctor audios]] should be a subcat of the same Doctor's serials category? --Whouk (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

But only very technically, since with the exception of the radio-broadcast plays, they are all released in one go - more like a story with 4 acts, really. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose (except The Paradise of Death and The Ghosts of N-Space). (I'm not entirely convinced that the audio plays category is large enough yet to be worth splitting, looking at it now.) --Whouk (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Solution: specific television in the Category:X Doctor serials description. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I think I'll go ahead and initiate the scheme outlined above some time tomorrow or Friday. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Others or Specials or even missilanous --Madcow 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a category for the TV movie? Would you include "Dimensions in Time"? The Cushing "Dr. Who" movies? "Scream of the Shalka"? "K-9 and Company"? I suppose you could have a Category:Doctor Who specials with The Five Doctors, the TV movie, The Christmas Invasion and maybe one or two others.

On the other hand, I think it might be OK just to leave it categorized as is, since it's really sui generis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another history idea

why don't we do the history of the doctor who logo? --Madcow 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not that important really. It only needs a passing mention in the history article, not a full page as you may be suggesting. --Jamdav86 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this before, and I think the consensus was to add the information to the History article (which hasn't been done, obviously).--Sean|Black 07:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

member problem

I was thinking maybe we could make a template to put on our userpages likes this

Userboxes

File:Drwhostub-02.JPG Wikipedians have made a doctor who club but it needs more members starting with you. Click here to join

--Madcowpoo 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have numerous templates for our userpages, including one which says that you are a member of the Doctor Who wikiproject. They're under 'Templates' on the wikiproject main page. Plus all those fan of Doctor Who templates. --Cooksey 10:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

doctor logos

idea why don't we have a history of the logos or we could put each logo in the history of the doctors and each logo can be next to the series they were used in.

--Madcowpoo 11:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that History of Doctor Who has enough images, but we could put the logos next to each Doctor (or next to the season each logo was introduced) on List of Doctor Who serials. Actually, I think I might just do that... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. Having the logos on the individual Doctor pages has some relevance, but even then the fair use rationale for the logo is already a bit dodgy. I'm not sure I see the rationale of putting it on the Serials page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I just put them on the page, before I saw this comment. The (probably weak) rationale would be that the logos are a visual illustration of the programme's development — arguably, the same as the use on the Doctor pages. However, I don't know much about fair use doctrine and the ins and outs of copyright, so I yield to those more knowledgeable about the law (i.e., you, Terence). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Which may make sense on the History page, which is why the original idea was to discuss the changes to the logos there, but much weaker on the serials page, which is a mere listing. Fair use is a grey area, and we should err on the side of caution, given how sensitive a topic it is around here these days. I'm reverting it, with regret. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours thoughts, ladies and gents

Should we create a page for the expression "behind the sofa"? It has a good deal of cultural context in the UK, and sources could doubtless be found. Might also be interesting to try and find the earliest examples of it. These days, although strongly associated with Doctor Who, it's often used here to describe being frightened of any situation (either in a joking or a serious context). I.e., as a random example I remember when Angus Deayton was sacked as presenter of Have I Got News For You in 2002, he released a press statement saying that he looked forward to watching the next edition "from behind the sofa".

Just an idea, anyhow. Angmering 19:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If D'oh! can have a Wikipedia page, then behind the sofa can. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that sounds good to me too, although I'm not old enough to have watched Doctor Who when it first aired, my mum says she used to watch it from behind the sofa; so yeah, it does have a lot of cultural context here. --Cooksey 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, seems that it hasn't gone down too badly as an idea. I'll try and do some research to get some references and see what I can knock together in the next day or two. Angmering 22:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I never watched DW from behind the sofa, but I used to watch Worzel Gummidge from there :-) --Whouk (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

i've reseved the page for you so no one steals it --Madcow 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Madcow, you can't reserve pages. Nobody can "steal" a page, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

'tis done. Even if I say so myself, I don't think it's a bad little article. Any suggestions for improvements, etc? Angmering 18:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding one of the templates from this project and i re-reseved the page afte someone deleted it --Madcow 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who deleted it because, as I said, you cannot "reserve" a page. If I hadn't someone else would have. Anyway, the proper page has been written now. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Behind the sofa link

we'll have to create a link other than here to the beind the sofa page any sugestions? --Madcow 19:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've already linked every mention of the phrase that existed in Wikipedia to it. (That's all two of them). Angmering 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

no 5

so how are we going to do no 5? --Madcow 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We will. It's part of the category structure we're discussing above. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

dw: Books

Why don't we make a catory of the doctor who books and make an artical about each one? tell me your thoughts?

--Madcow 19:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Individual books wouldn't justify their own articles. (See Ninth Doctor Adventures for an article about the most recent books.) The category is Category:Doctor Who books, oddly enough :-) --Whouk (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: most individual books wouldn't justify their own articles. However, as you can see at the category page, several books do have their own pages already (e.g. The Ancestor Cell, Lungbarrow, The Gallifrey Chronicles). I don't know whether we have a stated policy on what books are notable enough to have their own pages — if we don't, we should figure one out. It should be fine to have pages for books with significant impact on Doctor Who as a cultural phenomenon (e.g. Timewyrm:Genesys, both as the first of the Virgin New Adventures and because of the minor controversy in the press about its content), or books by especially noteworthy authors (such as Paul Magrs). We may or may not want to include books with significant impact on Doctor Who fan culture (e.g. Interference) — I'd argue for their inclusion, but the case might be a bit weaker. I'm unsure whether we can really justify having pages for a book like Heritage, which may not be especially notable on their own. (I'm not about to put it on AfD, just using it as an example for discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Internet is being a bit slow for me this evening so I didn't actually go to the category page. D'oh. That said, it's tricky to decide which books are notable from a NPOV. I can't say I'm convinced The Gallifrey Chronicles, for example, is worthy of its own article. Some of the notes are of a type that could just as easily be created for a book like Heritage. Once you take out Plot and those sort of notes, there's not much left. I'd suggest that either we should aim to have articles for all the books or for none of them. --Whouk (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument raised before is that, if we have articles for the audios, then we should have articles for the books. The real reason why the books haven't been dealt with in any great detail is simply because no-one has written them up, not because of notability issues. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair enough argument, I guess. While I'm not sure I agree with separate audio articles either, at least it's consistent. I don't read the books, so I can't help out with those missing pages sadly... --Whouk (talk) 22:39, 4 January

if i can have the founders permisson shall we start? --Madcow 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1. You don't need permission for everything you do, Madcow.
2. I don't really see why there couldn't be articles for all the books, but I believe if you cannot put sufficient detail into the articles, then the books can be merged together if really needed. Also it could be interesting to add a succession box to all Doctor Who stories to really clarify the position of the various spin-off books in between the TV serials (regardless of whether they are considered canon). --Jamdav86 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you could have a succession box that we could agree on for all stories; some will at unspecified points, and others might be even be mutually exclusive. It would make sense to use them for individual series of books though. --Whouk (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem in listing multiple books/audio releases myself, in order of decreasing canoniscity. It could become complex, but the next television serial is covered in the episode box, and as long as there is a help page for the easily confused, it could prove very useful tool fo Doctor Who fans, even if it took some pain in creating it. --Jamdav86 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's better left to sources like Outpost Gallifrey's Canon Keeper's Guide. It is, admittedly, infrequently updated and not as "live" as a wiki would be, but if we tried to do it here we'd be opening ourselves up to all sorts of canon debates. (Are the novels and audios in the same universe or not? How many times has Gallifrey been destroyed? And so forth.) What I think we can do is note on the pages of MAs, PDAs and audios for the 5th, 6th and 7th Doctors where in the Doctor's timeline the story is supposed to be set, and maybe (in an infobox?) "previous" and "next" stories within each medium for ongoing series like the NAs, EDAs and audios with ongoing story arcs. Anything more than that is just asking for trouble, IMO. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

seems its not gone too badly as an idea but i still need some more reponses before i decide what to do. so far im 95% close to makeing the pages --Madcow 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a prime case for the Wikipedia maxim Be bold! If you're looking for advice, you might model new pages on the existing ones for The Ancestor Cell and The Gallifrey Chronicles. If you've got a scanner and are good with images you can add an image of the book's cover, with the licensing template {{bookcover}}, like Lungbarrow has at Image:Lungbarrow.jpg.

Other project members will probably come along and "edit mercilessly". But it's great to have an energetic project member to get the ball rolling. Again, be bold! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We should really be using {{Infobox Book}} in addition. --Jamdav86 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ok i made a desion i will make the page --Madcow 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a confession to make - please don't hurt me when I tell you that I was the one who created the Vampire Science article. I thought that because it was the first EDA to properly follow the series's arc, it deserved its own page. Unfortunately, no-one else does and that's why it's so neglected (that and the fact I haven't actually read to the end yet). Some kind so-and-so has put in the Buffy fact at the bottom of the article, but does anyone have an idea of what we should do about this page? : NP Chilla 16:17, 7th January 2006 (GMT).

Doesn't matter. I personally believe that all books should be added to Wikipedia, but I believe that you should at least have a plot outline and use {{Infobox Book}} for the edit to be worthwile. And why would we hurt you? We're geeks, not crocodiles. --Jamdav86 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

new theme

the new doctor who serise might have a new theme thanks to the welsh musisan band.

looks like it from the 30 sec sample on the bbc doctor who site. i cannot confirm but looks like it. but i sure hope it is --Madcow 19:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

They're called the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, and this was used as the closing arrangement in The Christmas Invasion. Angmering 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Christmas Invasion, as broadcast on CBC here in Canada, didn't have a new theme as far as I can tell, and since the special is supposed to be a preview for the new season, I can't see them using the Eccleston theme for this and then changing to something else. Does anyone have the URL for the sample mentioned by Madcow? I can't find it anywhere on the BBC site. 23skidoo 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2006/01/03/28476.shtml Angmering 20:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, did it have the "Coming Soon" bit at the end? The rearrangement is easily identifiable because it has a new middle eight (or, rather, a restoration of the one used in the old series). I don't know whether it's intended as a new theme tune for the new series or was just used for the extended end music of the Christmas special. --Whouk (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally wasn't really listening to the music, it didn't sound different to me, but I was too busy watching the preview for the new series; which looks amazing. Plus Andrew Hayden-Smith will be appearing in it (sooooooo hot :P) --Cooksey 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And just to make sure there's no confusion, the "new theme" was not played over the front, but end credits. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the opening theme was also subtly different, in that it is edited from the series one ending theme. You can tell most easily near the beginning, when one of the brass notes slides downward in a way it never does in the series one opening. There are other differences in arrangement and recording, though that's the most obvious bit.

Although the "Eeeeeeeoooowwww...." sound effect at the begining of the opening titles was longer and lower in tone than the last one. (Did anyone else notice?...anyone?) - NP Chilla 18:03, 8th January 2006 (GMT)

I don't know if I like the new version. It sounds like it's being played too fast, though it's possible the BBC just sped it up for the website. I'm still unconvinced that it'll be used beyond the Christmas Invasion but I guess we'll see. Has anyone been able to access a version of the special with the actual closing credits and not the Coming Soon overlay? Maybe the BBC is planning to use the longer version over the closing credits and keep the opening credits as-is. 23skidoo 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

TV movie page location (again!)

This is just a heads-up that the ever-vexing subject of what the article on the TV movie should be titled has reared its ugly head once more at Talk:Doctor Who (Enemy Within). Everybody's comments are welcome and encouraged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

More on categorization

OK, as discussed above I've created Category:Doctor Who stories, with subcats for each of the Doctors. Some are pretty empty right now (Category:First Doctor stories, Category:Second Doctor stories), but will fill out when we have more pages for Past Doctor Adventures, &c. I don't know if anything else needs to be moved from Category:Doctor Who spin-offs or anywhere else. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Doctorwho

New userbox I made... type {{doctorwho}} for

and {{doctorwho|ninth}} (or any other Doctor) for

--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 09:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1. No fair use images in templates.
2. All userbox templates should start with user.
3. Switch templates should not be used, as they can't be subst: -ed to avoid meta templates
4. I covered your first userbox over at {{tl|user Doctor Who}}
5. Your second template is valid, because it is slightly different to my {{user Doctor Who 9th Doctor}}, but it should be split off and the backround colour changed to blue IMO.

See, Wikipedia:Wikiproject Userboxes isn't as useless as some may think! --Jamdav86 10:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And also, we should not have Template:Doctorwho be a user template, because it's our primary Doctor Who template name, and should be saved for something important. Phil Sandifer 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

100,000 BC vs. An Unearthly Child

I know you're all probably sick to your back teeth of hearing about it, but considering how we have just changed the name of the 1996 television film to Doctor Who (1996) (in my personal opinion, an infinitely better name), why not try to resolve the seemingly never ending debate of whether it is 100,000 BC or An Unearthly Child? Talk:100,000 BC (Doctor Who)

NP Chilla 19:02, 9th January 2006 (GMT)

Okay can we also try to bring peace to the Middle East and Northern Ireland, bring harmony between all religions, sort out whether the UK is an international or European country and all those other things that have been fiercely argued a lot? ;-) Timrollpickering 19:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think the debate is about to get a second wind, seeing as the upcoming American DVD release, The Beginning dubs the story An Unearthly Child and also uses the Edge of Destruction name for the Inside the Spaceship two-parter... 23skidoo 19:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, and that we should think about people less familiar with the original series; after all, a lot of people who have only watches the Ninth and Tenth Doctors in action will snap up the boxset, to learn more about Doctor Who. Calling it An Unearthly Child will not only help these "newbies", but also seeth the feelings of quite a lot of Whovians I know. (As well as this, at least half of the sources I have seen - official or otherwise - call it "An Unearthly Child"). NP Chilla 20:39, 9 January 2006

The current opener to the article and the redirects handle the requirements anyway. Fandom has long been deeply divided and I don't think some notion of appeasing one wing of the debate should direct where the Wikipedia page is located. Timrollpickering 21:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As long as the proper redirects are in place and the article acknowledges the alternate titles, I think we're good. This isn't quite the same situation we had with the TV movie when an off-the-cuff remark by the producer calling it Enemy Within came to be seen as somehow official. (And the Doctor Who Information Network here in Canada apparently uses a different title altogether that was mentioned in a CBC profile of the series made to tie in with the Eccleston season. I forget the name that was used.). 23skidoo 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The CBC profile I think used "Out of the Ashes", which apparently came from a misreading of Shannon Patrick Sullivan's webpage. As for 100,000 BC vs. An Unearthly Child, I agree that the redirects and article opening make the issue less pressing, but I also think that the title used in the DVD release (which isn't just in the US, but UK as well) lends a bit more weight to the An Unearthly Child argument. However, if we do reconsider the page's location, I agree that it shouldn't be about appeasing one group or another, but what's best for the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The DVD releases seal it for me - these should both be at their DVD titles, with the others being redirects. Phil Sandifer 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point to raise. I personally believe that it should be An Unearthly Child; but then it's not up to me, and I fully understand where Josiah is coming from. Why don't we settle this once and for all: a democratic vote where Whovians like ourselves vote for one title or the other. Anyone else agree/have another idea? NP Chilla (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2006

I'll put my vote in as An Unearthly Child also. Essexmutant 16:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been said before, but I'll say it again. The title of the serial is 100,000 BC. The title of the first episode is "An Unearthly Child". The fact that BBC Enterprises releases the DVD as "An Unearthly Child" is a matter of marketing, not historicity, and neither here nor there. The real reason the serial was called An Unearthly Child to begin with was because of a mistake by the Radio Times. AUC redirects to the right page, and there's no confusion. I'd rather rename The Daleks to The Mutants rather than change 100,000 BC to that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So when does marketing become history? If that's the name the serial is filed under, and that's the only name under which it's publicly available, it seems a little daft to call it something else just because it happened to be called that by some people at some point. The serial has no "proper" name; anything that's imposed on it is just as arbitrary as anything else, regardless of what internal documents show up with what pencil scratchings in the margins. So why not go with the clearest option? Surely popular usage has priority.

Putting the name of the article aside for a moment, I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If possible, we should decide the article name by consensus, not voting. I don't have a strong opinion about what the article should be called (both sides have persuasive arguments), but I do feel strongly that we should take care not to let ourselves become factionalized. Although arguing about episode titles is a long-standing form of entertainment for Doctor Who fans, we should try not to do it here, as it's agin the spirit of the project. Discuss, listen, and compromise rather than arguing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a long-standing bias towards articles being at whatever location they are most often referred to as. That the VHS and DVD releases were both at An Unearthly Child, that the novelization pointed towards Unearthly Child, and our article freely admits that the BBC now refers to the story as An Unearthly Child. These are all documentable, and as evidence are stronger than vague debates about what it "should" be. If you strongly believe that it should be 100,000 BC, go convince the BBC to refer to it as such, and then Wikipedia will change to follow. But we're bound to follow the dominant usage. Phil Sandifer 17:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather sceptical that within the context in this debate it's possible to talk about such a single thing as "the BBC". Often this actually means (whether realised or not) "this particular BBC department/output agrees with me" and the usage by departments is not always universal - I remember the fun in 1998 when "the official guide" published by the BBC listed the third story as Inside the Spaceship whilst at the same time others were trying to assert the BBC archive catalogue computer - which seems to have had the same titles since c 1981 yet contradicts some of the titles used in a 1990 study by the BBC Research department and both in turn contradict titles used in lists from the old production office. So just which was "the BBC"?! Timrollpickering 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

So what BBC department disagrees with this title, then? Can we get a listing of dissenters? I've not seen any.

I think that anyone who wants to take a position on this issue — no matter which side you eventually fall on — really needs to read Andrew Pixley's "By Any Other Name" which details how convoluted the history of the names are and when they were promulgated. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

One might also note that "An Unearthly Child" redirects to this article, so where's the confusion if someone types it into the search box? And, anticipating that the counterargument will be raised that "100,000 BC (Doctor Who)" will do the same, I once again point out that the latter has the advantage of being the first non-generic title publicly used, and why I take the position that it has historical precedence. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't popular usage take precedence over historical usage, though?

Right. This is becoming an increasingly bloodthirsty argument; a seemingly never-ending paradox analogous to Sisyphus, forever condemned to push his boulder of the hill every day, only for it to roll down again... Er, sorry about that. But I don't get quite what Josiah is saying. A vote was held to decide whether or not a story should be catalogued as "1" for "100,000", or "O" for "One hundred thousand..." Why should we not have one now? Have the rules changed? - NP Chilla (talk)

I wasn't an active member when the "1" vs. "O" vote occurred, so I can't speak to that precedent. What I meant was that Wikipedia prefers consensus to majoritarian voting, when possible. In the past, this preference was strong enough that some Wikipedians used to say "voting is evil". This was later toned down to "polls are evil". But the point is that if it's possible to create a consensus, we should do so. There's no harm in holding a straw poll to see which side has numerical support, and if y'all think it would be helpful to do so on this issue we can. But the problem with voting and polls is that they encourage people to take adversarial, binary positions instead of finding common ground. I suppose that since there are two clear alternatives here and not a lot of room for compromise options, a straw poll might be warranted. I'm just leery of jumping into one without ensuring that the arguments of both sides have been fully understood by all parties.

I don't know how formal we need to be on this issue, or whether we need to follow the suggestions at Wikipedia:straw polls to the letter. But that page does say, "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." So before we jump into voting on 100,000 BC vs. An Unearthly Child, do we all agree that these are the two options to consider? Is the wording, "Should the article currently at 100,000 BC (Doctor Who) remain at that location or be moved to An Unearthly Child?" OK for the straw poll, or is another wording better? I know it's tedious, but since the issue is one on which Who fans are far from unanimous, we should make sure we make the decision in the right way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there are only two options. There's also a case for The Tribe of Gum to be considered, not least because it was the first title used internally, the one recalled by the author some fifteen years later and used on the script book. Whilst I would not support it myself, it does have a case for it and is still often cited as a common alternative with the other two. Timrollpickering 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about — why I think an up-or-down poll is premature at this stage, and we'd be better off discussing it more first. But I suppose it's moot now that we've started the WP:RM... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the debate wouldn't be so emotional (he says with a wink) if 100,000 B.C. weren't such a lame title. An Unearthly Child has a better ring to it, as does The Tribe of Gum even. The Daleks, similarly isn't that descriptive a title; The Dead Planet sound better. And Inside the Spaceship make Doctor Who sound like a kids program (wink) instead of the more action-packed Edge of Destruction which Target used for its novelization. We can only thank our lucky stars the BBC settled on overall serial titles fairly quickly after that. Can you imagine us having to debate 26 years worth of the things? 23skidoo 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather leave it wrong than have a vote. But I really hate voting. Phil Sandifer 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I think this is only going to get bloodier as time goes on, so I've put in a formal WP:RM request now and had done with it. See Talk:100,000 BC (Doctor Who)#Requested_move. - SoM 00:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And please feel free to add your vote/comment/piece for discussion here!! NP Chilla 19:21, 12 January 2006

I wonder how long this will go on for before the votes are counted and a decision made - can anyone please tell me? NP Chilla 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Nightstallion's removal of the move template and comment are meant to signify that the move request had failed, although I could do with a slightly less telegraphic explanation, myself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But that's not fair - according to WP:RM, when a voted majority of 60% or higher is acchieved (3 out of the 5 votes cast are sufficient in this case) in 5 days, the move is taken/not taken as the majority voted for. What's going on? NP Chilla 16:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Nightstallion to explain his reasoning further, either here or at the talk page. However, I'm guessing from his "vote is evil" comment that he felt that in this case the voting process failed to produce a true consensus, even though the 60% threshold was reached. WP:RM says that community consensus is "generally 60% or more" (italics added). Although the RM process resembles a majoritarian vote, it's supposed to be a measure of consensus. I actually think we were heading towards a consensus supporting the move, myself, but I'm guessing that Nightstallion didn't think so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion has responded on his talk page. It's more or less what I thought — his main objection was that we should have come to a discussion-based consensus rather than a vote (which I happen to agree with). However, he also said that he wouldn't mind having another admin take a look at the move request, so I've asked Mindspillage to check it out so we can have a second opinion. (We've got plenty of admins here at the Project, but I think it's best that we get an outside view.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Heck, that's complicated. So, what should we do know? In order to get our consensus, I mean - does that talk we had on the discussion page of "100,000 Bc"/"An Unearthly Child" count towards something like a consensus? - NP Chilla 15:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be heading there, although the strong opposition of Khaosworks and Timrollpickering weigh against it. You're right that consensus is more difficult to achieve than a simple majority — in order to reach a consensus you need to listen to your opponents' arguments and respond to them thoughtfully, not just drown them out with arguments of your own. That's a skill that isn't developed much these days (especially in the political arena... but I digress). To reach a real consensus, all parties have to be willing to compromise and recognize that those who disagree with them have good reasons for holding the positions that they do. It can't be about winning and losing, but about reaching a solution that's acceptable to everybody. And that's not easy.

This sermon has been brought to you by the Organization of Wooly-Minded Liberals. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's even more complicated than I thought! So, where do we go from here? The arguments on "100,000 BC"'s talkpage have already hit fever-pitch, and both sides of the argument seem to be deadlocked. NP Chilla 14:05, 19 January 2006

Yup. And, fundamentally, it's a binary choice with no room for compromise - the page is moved, or it is not moved. A compromise wording isn't possible. - SoM 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it's a purely binary choice — as Timrollpickering points out above, "The Tribe of Gum" is a third option for naming, and there might be room for compromise on ancillary issues connected with the naming. For example, in the discussion on the article talk page, I suggested that the article could be named and actually located at An Unearthly Child, but referred to in the article and links as "100,000 BC". This was in accordance with the guideline, which says, "articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." Whouk seemed to find this persuasive, and with time others might have as well. I'm not mentioning this to say that I've got all the answers, but to show that even in an apparently binary argument there can be room for compromise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I never thought of that. (Although it is made clear in the article that The Tribe of Gum is the story's working title; not to mention the fact that it sounds like a brand of Wrigley's Cheming Gum!!) But, binary or not, there is a large question mark hanging over our heads, as far as this is concerned: neither side of the argument shows signs of deferring, and compromise seems about as likely as Davros becoming Miss World 2006; what do we do under such situations? My 25 years of working at the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation (an in-joke for you, Josiah!!) have not prepared me for this. NP Chilla 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I think that a compromise and/or consensus may yet be possible, if we all take the time to listen to each other and consider each other's arguments seriously. For what it's worth, here's Mindspillage's comment on the matter (copied from my user talk page):

Ouch, that's a tough one. I don't think Nightstallion was wrong to close it that way, but I don't think that should be treated as as the be-all and end-all final decision so therefore it can never be moved, either. No consensus, indeed. This is just as hard in its own way and for the same reasons as the Ivo... erm, that country in Africa which was the subject of a similar naming war, for almost exactly the same reasons. It's a tough call. Keep talking about it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that's probably not what advocates on either side wanted to hear, but I think it's a very sensible response. It ain't easy, but it's the Wikipedia way. So, like the lady says, let's keep talking about it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound sensible. So, should we continue the discussion here, or on the talk page of "100,000 BC"/"An Unearthly Child"? NP Chilla 19:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it makes more sense to discuss it there. In fact, I might move this discussion to Talk:100,000 BC (Doctor Who), so that it's all in one place. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Novels

Have we had a firm decision not to have individual articles on original novels like the New Adventures and the BBC Books, or is it just that nobody has written them? Phil Sandifer 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we just haven't gotten around to it ^_^. It shouldn't be too hard to whip up some decent stubs (or lists, if we want to merge them) based solely on resources like [1] and [2], plus (obviously) the books any one of us have actually read. I'll see what I can come up with.--Sean|Black 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few already - see Category:Doctor Who books. Timrollpickering 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You know how the Eighth Doctor Adventures has a "Plot overview"? Well, wouldn't it be great if some clever so-and-so did the same for the Virgin New Adventures? After all, both book series contain a similar number of books. Anyone fancying doing this?

(PS: I'm not being lazy in trying to get other people to do the work - honest!! - it's just I've never read a new adventure in my life. Can't find a single one.) - NP Chilla (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2006

If nobody else steps up to the plate, I'll try to whip something up in a day or two. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you do this, I shall be your eternal admirer until The Dalek Invasion of Earth happens (because, let's face it, I'll be first against the wall once all the exterminations start). NP Chilla 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What, you work for the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation? Or am I getting my future histories confused? :)

I haven't done anything on this yet, but will put a draft together this weekend. (Some of my NAs are in storage, which complicates things a bit, but Dominique Boies' Doctor Who Guide should help.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Update: this is taking a bit longer than I expected. I'm about halfway through the series, with a partial draft at User:Josiah Rowe/sandbox (which also has some notes on story elements that probably ought to be mentioned somewhere in the NA article). If anyone feels terribly energetic, feel free to correct/continue/expand my draft (I'm waiting until I've got a summary of the whole series before I put it in the article, though). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We clearly have readers in high places

Or lazy sods in the BBC press office, one of the two:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/scifi.shtml

"about a mysterious time-travelling adventurer known simply as 'The Doctor'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who

"about a mysterious time-travelling adventurer known only as 'The Doctor'."

Angmering 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Humans...always finding patterns in things that aren't there." — The Doctor

Just keep in mind that this in-and-of-itself is a bare-bones clause. There's no easy way to form alternate statements without altering the meaning, apart from variations of "simply" and "only"...perhaps even variations of "mysterious". DonQuixote 22:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is I have never seen a description of the show written like that anywhere else except from here and now on the BBC press release. For a start, when do press releases and the general media *ever* make a point of him being called "The Doctor", instead of just referring to him as "Doctor Who"?

Anyhow, I just thought it was an interesting little curio. Angmering 22:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, it's a quite common description of the Doctor...which isn't that surprising. DonQuixote 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah...some other variations..."time-travelling alien", "time-traveller", etc. Again, not much of a variety there. DonQuixote 23:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Terrance Dicks coined this phrase in about 1974! DavidFarmbrough 09:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Unitnews.co.uk

I think this should go to WP:AFD, as link spam by User:Unitnews. Just running it by here first. Anyone thinks it's worth rewriting or keeping? --TimPope 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD all the way. We don't have an article on OG (nor should we), so this needs to go.--Sean|Black 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Poof, though I think an OG article would be reasonable. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable, maybe. Desirable is another thing.--Sean|Black 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the bigger question is what we have for articles on fandom in general. Phil Sandifer 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, a Doctor Who fandom article would be very nice. Compare Tolkien fandom.--Sean|Black 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - without that article, an OG article is silly. Once that article exists, OG becomes a valid subarticle, I figure. :) Phil Sandifer 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)