Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals

Featured topic

@TheDoctorWho, Pokelego999, and DoctorWhoFan91: I belive that our collective efforts could get us a featured topic. Now I understand that this would take an incredible amount of reserching, writing, planning, time, and effort but I do think it is doable. However if you all agree to this, we wouldn't be using our current system of proposing a million different ideas. We would have to pick one topic and stick to it. Please note that this would be a long term project you would be signing onto if you agree to it.

Now if you agree, the next question what would be our topic? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would suggest focusing on the fictional elements side of things, but those are so far reaching and expansive in content that FT would be way more difficult. I feel one of the episode topics may be most feasible, but I'm not sure which grouping of episodes has the most far-reaching coverage for something like that. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me start first of all by saying yes, I would be interested in this. If there are four of us working towards it, there's no reason why we couldn't make it our primary work in progress and still work towards our other goals as a secondary thing. I've never personally promoted a good or featured topic, but as someone who has a featured article under their belt, I have a few observations:

• The expectation at WP:FAC is significantly higher and the process takes a lot longer than that at WP:FLC and WP:GAC.
  • This is especially prevalent in sourcing. I'd be doubtful that a number of sources that pass GAC or FLC would pass FAC (CultBox, Digital Spy, ScreenRant, Collider, etc.) and would require only those of higher quality (Deadline, TVLine, Vulture, The Hollywood Reporter, Radio Times, etc.)
• Only one FAC nomination (or two in the case of a co-nomination) is allowed at one time, with a two week waiting period after each archived nom.
  • This is in comparison to FLC where up to two solo nominations are allowed (once the first has substantial support) and there's no waiting period.
• As a procedural note, it's worth pointing out that only half of the articles need to be of featured quality.

With that said, here's what I personally suggest:

• The smaller the topic and the greater coverage the articles have in sourcing, the more chance of success I think we would have.
  • For example, the 2023 specials would be a lot easier and less stressful on us than the companion articles
  • I also agree with the above, that the more real-world we get, the better chance of success we have.
• Depending on the route we go, it may also be easier to maximize FL's where possible over FA's.

With these observations and suggestions, I'd say the easiest one of these to succeed in would be this one (it's also on the goals page):

Lists of Doctor Who episodes

7 articles

1963–1989

2005–present

Christmas and New Year's specials

Supplementary episodes

Missing episodes

Unmade episodes

I only say that because everything (except maybe missing episodes) would go through FLC, it's also small and concise, and set us up for a number of our future subtopics/subsubtopics. My second choice would likely be the 2005-2024 seasons or the 2023 specials. I am not however, overly attached to either of these choices and would still be willing to participate in whichever one you three think is the best. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the above suggestion. It definitely seems like the most feasible to accomplish and is a big boon in terms of quality for the overall project. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If we go that route, the biggest task would be overhauling the missing episodes page. There's large portions of unsourced content and what I believe to be an unnecessary amount of tables. I don't doubt that the sources exist though to hit GA quality, and potentially even FA (it was FA quality at one time). But, if not, even GA would put us well above the 50% threshold.

I would also like to make the Lists page at the top a general overview list for the other ones. For example, give a one to two paragraph overview explanation of what and why missing episodes don't exist, and provide a hatnote at the top of the section pointing readers towards that specific article for further information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That would be my only concern with the topic would be that the lists page may be ineligeble Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Because of WP:GT?#3c, it would just need to go through peer review, which would probably make it the easiest of the bunch.

I concur with the suggestion too, it's useful, but still more or less the easiest of all the goals. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I was slightly concerned about that. There was a semi-recent discussion about this. My understanding (is as stated), that as long as we can expand it beyond an index, and meet the criteria, we may have success. I may be wrong in my interpretation though, so I'd appreciate others opinions. This in my sandbox is essentially what I envisioned for the "Lists of Doctor Who episodes" page. It covers everything within the "Episodes" category of {{Doctor Who}}. Perhaps we could start with that and see if it actually passes an FLC? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The sandbox definitely looks like the right way to go, couldn't have created a better outline myself. And it would be a good idea, much easier to write and find resources for the show's structure in general, then its seasons or junking policy, that would be needed for the other articles. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We have to source the AI and veiwership numbers from somewhere before we can do that. So anyone got any starting points to try? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Most modern viewership can be sourced from BARB. DWF91 has replaced a few AI sources lately from sources like this. I see some of those also has viewership numbers. I haven't verified all of them myself to make sure they all contain the information, but assuming that covers series 1-10 that is a sizable chunk. The books you linked below for the missing episodes, also appear to contain viewership and AI info. I presume it would take a while for these sources to be implemented since they're all individual, but I think if the four of us team up and split up the workload it wouldn't take quite as long. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There are sources from series 2-14 for both AI and viewers, including the specials, in the DWM specials, but I have only been able to find archive.org sources for series 2-2009S, with the rest scattered here and there. For series 1, and classic, we can use the source provided by @OlifanofmrTennant though, I don't think there are any other sources for them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Ill begin tracking down sources then. Problem is I haven't been able to find the averages. Would using the various sources for the individual episodes be covered by WP:CALC? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Averages should definitely fall under CALC, it's a basic calculation since all the individual numbers are sourced. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

For the missing episode we could probably use these books. The minimum amount of Featured content that we need is 4. The revived series episodes and supplementary episode will have to be FL. Everything can be GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)