Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 5 April 2005 and 26 May 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Doctor Who spin-offs
Page is now too big, ideas on how to split it? --TimPope 17:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- khaosworks and I discussed spinning the games section into its own article ("Doctor Who merchandise," probably) a while back. That's probably the most logical way to go, IMO, as the inclusion of that material here has always seemed a little bit forced, IMO. – Seancdaug 18:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Picture Cards section could also go with it, the rest are more less related topics. --TimPope 19:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. I've also thought that if we want to go further we can even spin-off audios and books - something to think about, now that TimPope is listing the audio plays from Big Finish. I'm shifting this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Doctor Who. --khaosworks 19:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Picture Cards section could also go with it, the rest are more less related topics. --TimPope 19:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is it worth creating a Doctor Who specific stub, or would this encourage too many stubs? On the subject of canon, from the project page, are Telos novellas worth mentioning? --TimPope 20:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the Telos novellas come under "officially licensed". I don't think we need a Doctor Who-specific stub, myself. --khaosworks 20:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not sure the question of canonicity is relevant in deciding what should and should not be included. Canonicity is a conceit of fandom, and Wikipedia should ideally be writing for more than just fans. The important question should be whether or not its relevant and/or noteworthy. – Seancdaug 22:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, but considering that canonicity is a great concern for fandom, I think we should distinguish between particular sources so people at least can decide if they want to accept it or not. I don't think we should take a stand on whether or not the novels or the comic strip, etc. are canon or we should reject something as "non-canon", just that we should at least tell people where certain elements come from. The only thing that people seem to agree on as canon is the television series, so that's all right. For the rest, we should source. That's what I mean. --khaosworks 01:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree that specifying source is important. I was just responding to the idea that a decision regarding the inclusion of the Telos novellas should be made on the basis of their canonicity. – Seancdaug 02:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that the Telos novellas should not be mentioned at all, rather their status when referered to in other articles. Now that KhaosWorks has rewritten the canon section to a What to Include section, the question has gone away. I was just wondering on whether they could be referred to in the same way as, say the Big Finish audio dramas, in other Doctor Who articles. I would have thought they deserve their own article, though possibly not one per novella, but that is just my preference. --TimPope 06:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think this project is a good idea and particularly appreciate the creation of a template for Doctor Who television entries. I think perhaps the Reeltime video's should join the BBV's, but having said that, the nature of Wikipedia isn't to be proscriptive and if there is someone willing to write an episode guide to the Bournemouth Local Group's Twelve Doctors adventures, then they should do so - it just won't be linked to from the Doctor Who article.David Farmbrough 10:20, 7 Apr 2005 (BST)
On the topic of canon, I wonder if this article, or the WikiProject page itself, shouldn't include a bit more detail as to the rather unusual way canon is handled regarding the licensed spin-offs. As I've always understood it -- and my source for this is either a website like Outpost Gallifrey or a magazine, I've forgotten -- the all the BBC-licensed stuff such as the novels, the audios, etc. exist in a "grey area" regarding canon. This differs from the black and white world of Star Trek which, according to franchise owner Paramount, is divided into canon (anything live action on TV or in movies) and non-canon (anything in print including conjectures in official reference books, plus the animated series). Does someone know for certain what the BBC party line is? Here in Canada we've only seen the first two stories of the new season, but based upon these episodes alone it seems the show may be lining up to acknowledge at least some aspects of the novel continuity (though upcoming episodes may prove otherwise). 23skidoo 12:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there is no "party line" - the BBC does not take a position on canon at all, and leaves it up to its licensees to handle. That's why then the BBC novel range started up, although it was supposed ton be a new continuity from the NAs, since they used many of the same authors, references to the NAs came in anyway. Ditto with the audios, etc. It's not a grey area as such (which implies some kind of acknowledgment) - the BBC simply ignores the concept: it's just what is licensed and what isn't, and it's the fans that debate it. Davies has written for the novels, and is a fan of the Big Finish audios, so he's well aware of what's going on there. I think the most plausible idea concerning what RTD has in mind for the show is that he's not going to acknowledge the non-TV continuity, but he's not going out of his way to contradict it... at least, not in any way that Who doesn't already contradict itself. That's why I've just been saying it's "unclear", and why the Wikiproject page does say we should not take a position, just source it and let the reader decide. --khaosworks 13:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hopefully RTD does indeed take this approach because just take a look at the Doctor Who Reference Guide and you'll see there is a HUGE amount of licensed material out there, which has helped enhance the Whoniverse for 15 years. (Not without some controversy, of course). Not everyone has heard the audios or read the books, but they have a devoted following and I'd hate to see RTD cut them off. The BBC is taking the smart approach, too. Paramount created quite a bit of bad blood among Trek fans by declaring the books non-canon as well as the animated series. BBC is probably smart to stay out of it, except perhaps for declaring actors to be "official Doctors" which was necessary in the case of Richard Grant vs. Chris Eccleston and the Ninth Doctor mantle. 23skidoo 19:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there is no "party line" - the BBC does not take a position on canon at all, and leaves it up to its licensees to handle. That's why then the BBC novel range started up, although it was supposed ton be a new continuity from the NAs, since they used many of the same authors, references to the NAs came in anyway. Ditto with the audios, etc. It's not a grey area as such (which implies some kind of acknowledgment) - the BBC simply ignores the concept: it's just what is licensed and what isn't, and it's the fans that debate it. Davies has written for the novels, and is a fan of the Big Finish audios, so he's well aware of what's going on there. I think the most plausible idea concerning what RTD has in mind for the show is that he's not going to acknowledge the non-TV continuity, but he's not going out of his way to contradict it... at least, not in any way that Who doesn't already contradict itself. That's why I've just been saying it's "unclear", and why the Wikiproject page does say we should not take a position, just source it and let the reader decide. --khaosworks 13:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Style guide
I've mentioned in the main project page what - up to now - has been my own personal style guidelines for the articles I've been writing. This is open to discussion. --khaosworks 20:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The style guide seems sensible enough, although you may have some opposition to episode numbering conventions.David Farmbrough 10:27, 7 Apr 2005 (BST)
- I'm not wedded to the idea, but I thought it might be useful so people - particularly non-fans - could get an idea of where the story stood in the overall context of the series. The Discontinuity Guide seems to have been the first to use this numbering system, and the Doctor Who Reference Guide website has followed it, too. --khaosworks 13:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The style guide seems sensible enough, although you may have some opposition to episode numbering conventions.David Farmbrough 10:27, 7 Apr 2005 (BST)
I don't believe story titles should be italicized. Since they are technically episodes, they should have quotation marks around them, with only the series title, Doctor Who italicized. At least that's the way I've been taught through various style guides applied to other TV series. Is there an overall consensus on this? I notice a lot of people italicize the titles for the 27th season stories, but these certainly shouldn't be IMO since they are, for the most part, standalone single episodes and should be treated the same way, for example, Star Trek episodes are treated. Thoughts? 23skidoo 14:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've been following the format seen in magazines like Doctor Who Magazine, reference books like The Television Companion and the Handbooks, among others, that all italicize story titles in the series. Even though the new Series 1 are stand alone episodes, they are still individual stories, and for consistency's sake should be italicized as well. --khaosworks 15:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Those being specialized magazines, though, they would have their own style. Wikipedia is more general, however, and the italicizing of episode titles is not consistent with how they are handled in other articles. (Again, I'll use Star Trek as an example since there are individual articles for episodes here and they don't italicize.) I think the Doctor Who references should be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. I do know that according to the Chicago Manual of Style (my main reference in my work as a freelance book editor) episode titles should be quotationed (to make up a word). Overall season titles, such as Key to Time and Trial of a Time Lord are different cases since they are de facto subtitles to the Doctor Who title during those seasons (although in the case of Key to Time, this subtitle was added after-the-fact for the DVD release). Is there an overall Wikipedia style policy regarding italics? 23skidoo 15:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think so, but I'd rather be consistent within our own set of pages - which has been the consensus ever since I came in on this last year - than adapt ourselves to Star Trek. And it's not just DWM. The Television Companion, the Handbooks, the BBC material, the Big Finish audios, all do it this way, and they aren't magazines. I won't go into my own rant about how inconsistent the Chicago manual is (I'm an academic), but be that as it may, throughout "official" Doctor Who fandom, this is how it's done. Besides, how do you deal with serials in the early Hartnell era, with both episode titles and overall story titles? I don't think we should switch (which would also be a massive effort across the board, incidentally), because as far as I can see, we are being consistent in the useage so far. Unless there's a specific Wikipedia way of doing things, I'm not persuaded. --khaosworks 16:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the "Key to Time" was not added for the DVD release, but was how fandom had always referred to those sets of stories as an overall title. The DVD release co-opted it. --khaosworks 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Beg pardon, I was a bit unclear. Key to Time has always been used by fans -- and I believe the Target novelizations -- but to my knowledge the DVD release was the first time the BBC itself had acknowledged the title. (PS. is there a website that goes into the problems people have with Chicago Manual of Style? I've hardly read the thing cover-to-cover myself but you aren't the first to express dissatisfaction with it. It's the house stylebook used by the publisher I freelance for, otherwise I'm actually more familiar with the Canadian Press Stylebook). 23skidoo 19:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- From recollection the early 1995 VHS releases (in the UK at least) used the phrase "Key to Time" on the stickers on the cases and may have also used it on the sleeve text as well. Timrollpickering 00:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Beg pardon, I was a bit unclear. Key to Time has always been used by fans -- and I believe the Target novelizations -- but to my knowledge the DVD release was the first time the BBC itself had acknowledged the title. (PS. is there a website that goes into the problems people have with Chicago Manual of Style? I've hardly read the thing cover-to-cover myself but you aren't the first to express dissatisfaction with it. It's the house stylebook used by the publisher I freelance for, otherwise I'm actually more familiar with the Canadian Press Stylebook). 23skidoo 19:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the "Key to Time" was not added for the DVD release, but was how fandom had always referred to those sets of stories as an overall title. The DVD release co-opted it. --khaosworks 16:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From my talk page: Hi. Sorry to be a pedant, but please use double quotes not italics to denote a story within a series, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. And please don't edit existing articles to replace the double quotes with italics. (eg. [1]) Thanks. — P Ingerson (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think the italicised serial titles look better, especially as they are linked. I will confine the style to Doctor Who specific articles to avoid controversy. --TimPope 11:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Pre-broadcast spoilers
An issue that needs some discussion, I think. Earlier this evening I happened to notice that Khaosworks had made an edit to the Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart article, with the edit described as 18:04, 8 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart (added spoiler detail about World War Three). Now, this strikes me as a little off - saying there's a spoiler connected with World War Three involving Lethbridge-Stewart is a giveaway in and of itself, for a start! Now, I personally don't regard this as a major spoiler and I wasn't upset about reading it, but there are some who certainly would be, I think, and wouldn't even be protected by a spoiler warning because it's there in the edit summary, maybe not the detail but certainly a good idea of it. However, that's not really the main issue. My major point is, ought we to be adding details of episodes not yet broadcast, even if clearly marked up as spoilers and only relating details confirmed by the likes of the BBC Press Office? I'm not sure whether something can exactly be encyclopedic before it's happened - I must confess I had the same slight misgivings when the Rose synposis was added in full before the episode aired, although I wasn't tempted to look at it! Any other views on this? Angmering 22:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Apologize for that edit summary - slipped my mind entirely!
- As for "future events", it's a fine line between that and current events, I grant you. For a long time, I was holding back on the synopsis I did of Rose based on the leaked episode, until someone put up info on it anyway and I decided, "What the hell." I'm perfectly willing to go back to holding off, just that given the fact that most of us should have lives, it's easier to update as and when the info comes in rather than hang on. In a way, this information is already confirmed since it's part of an official press release - well, as much as it can be given the way the Beeb messed up the Eccleston affair - so I don't think there's going to be any changes that will render it less factual later. I'm not fussed either way, myself; it's just a matter of convenience at the moment. --khaosworks 23:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Photo's/Figures
ISTM that it would be worth having some good quality visual material on these pages. For example one clear photo' for each story, but it could be equally useful to vary the media - one could have a publicity shot, one a screen still, one a line illustration etc. As long as it doesn't become overburdened (I can see some people wanting to have pictures of every cast member), this should improve the articles. I appreciate all the arguments about copyright etc. User:DavidFarmbrough 00:25 BST 10/APR/'05
- I've been placing pictures on the articles as best I can - the main issue with putting them on the story pages is where to put them - the upper half of the story is already cluttered enough, what with the infobox. As long as the layout doesn't become completely ugly and awkward, it should be all right, but just one screenshot or graphic per story (and properly tagged), please, to stay within the bounds of fair use. --khaosworks 23:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I tried out a screenshot on the entry for The Unquiet Dead. Thoughts? --khaosworks 07:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Project templates
I was thinking that it might be good to have some list boxes (if that's the right terminology) for various Who-related stuff. For instance a {{Doctor Who companions}} template to put at the bottom of each companion's page, listing all of the companions (maybe by which Doctor they travelled with). This would be analogous to the boxes found on many pages related to US states, listing various towns, regions, etc. Perhaps similar boxes for monsters/villains, UNIT, etc. I might be persuaded to work on such things, if people think it's a good idea. Gwimpey 04:45, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Some might argue that's what the categories are for, although the categories don't really lend themselves to easy breakdown by Doctor. What might be more useful is a box like the infobox for the serials, but with the companion name, picture, years on the show, Doctor(s) travelled with, Companion(s) travelled with. Have a look at Template:Superherobox for something similar. That being said, do up a couple of examples and we'll toss it around? --khaosworks 04:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
List of Doctor Who planets
This page is in desperate need of a cleanup. Too busy to do it right now, but a cursory glance shows bad links, potential for a proliferation of stub articles, and non-television series canon info (Sontara, for example). The intro paragraph also makes me wince. Someone please go in and do a sweep. --khaosworks 05:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- OK This has been tidied up. It still needs a lot of work, so Khaosworks's invitation still stands!
User:DavidFarmbrough 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (BST)
It's starting to look more respectable. Good work, everyone! --khaosworks 07:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Although I don't think all the planets mentioned by The Captain in The Greatest Show in the Galaxy need listing. <--grin--> --TimPope 16:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Where anyone can edit?
I qualify as a member of the set "anyone". Yesterday, I made some changes that Khaosworks and Tim Pope didn't like, so they changed them back. Not a problem there -- that's the point of Wikipedia. If you make a change that rubs someone the wrong way, they'll either modify it or delete it.
Then, both left me exasperated messages. Tim's was polite (he mentioned this Wikiproject existed), Khaoswork's was not. He felt I shouldn't make changes like that without "consultation".
Hmmm... I didn't see "property of Wikiproject Doctor Who" anywhere on the page. I didn't log in and see the slogan "where anyone can edit" modified to "where anyone involved in the appropriate Wikiproject can edit". It's not that my changes were rejected -- it's the attitude that I need permission to make these changes, which is against the very nature of Wikipedia. At the very least, the GNU Free Doc license assures me of that legally.
So, how about a group goal (alongside goal #1, recruiting more members) of realizing that there are no unauthorized meddlers on Wikipedia. The person who just changed this or that page that you worked so hard to perfect is just as authorized as you are, and being rude to anyone who annoys you is a good way wreck a good thing for everyone. If you reverse all of the offending changes, let the user know why and mention that you're in this great Wikiproject which you'd like them to join, I'd think there would be few hard feelings, more new members, and a lot more work getting done.
What d'you think, sirs? --Proteus71 (Talk) 16:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I was being polite. I did say "please" - and besides, to mention the wikiproject again would have been to duplicate Tim's message. I apologise if you read it the wrong way. I think, though, that given the very major change - an article move is pretty big, as it can mess up links, you should have at least mentioned why in the edit summary. --khaosworks 15:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I also apologize for the snafu's on my part. --Proteus71 Apr 15, 2005
- Glad we have that settled. And since I neglected to say it before - welcome! --khaosworks 15:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I echo the welcome, and I hope that you don't think we don't welcome your contributions :) (urgh double negative) --TimPope 16:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doctor Who stub
I think it was Tim who discussed the creation of a Doctor Who-specific stub template a while back. My view then was that it wasn't needed, but on consideration I'm not that sure now. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? It wouldn't be difficult just to tag a Doctor Who logo on. --khaosworks 18:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Star Trek has one, why not Doctor Who? It'd also make it easy for folks to see what articles need expanding. I'm all for it. 23skidoo 19:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I decided it'd be harmless just to create the template, so have a look at Template:Doctorwho-stub, and use {{Doctorwho-stub}} to tag the relevant articles. I decided to use the McGann/Pertwee logo for visibility reasons - the new logo just doesn't scale very well to tiny size. --khaosworks 19:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tennant
Shall we add him now, or be good boys and girls and wait another hour and a half? Angmering 21:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, let's be good. :) --khaosworks 21:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Aw, you're no fun! :) Angmering 21:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have the edit on the main article poised and ready to save at midnight. ;) --khaosworks 22:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Season 27 or Season 1?
Please excuse me if someone has asked this before, but is there a consensus on how the 2005 series should be referred to? Since it is a direct continuation of the 1963-89 series (as opposed to a reboot or reimagining or even a "Doctor Who: The Next Generation"), I am of the opinion the 2005 season should be called Season 27. DWIN's FAQ says that it is correct to refer to it as either season 27 or season 1, and the BBC, internally, apparently considers it season 1. But I still think calling it Season or Series 27 is the correct way to go, and also looks a lot more impressive and reminds newcomers that this is a show with considerable history. (I've already seen some postings by people who, having heard it referred to as Season 1, were caught completely by surprise that the show actually has 26 seasons and a movie under its belt). Thoughts? 23skidoo 12:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is just my view, but as the BBC is referring to it as Series (not Season, by the way) 1, we should reflect that. I'd swear we talked about this before, but it was probably in edit summaries and not the talk page... anyway, Season 27, etc. is not factual, and thus not appropriate, IMO, for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia; we should present the facts as accurately as we can. If, in future, the fan base comes to a consensus (well, as far as fan bases can) as to how to historically refer to Series 1, etc., then we can change it. But for now, we should just call it what RTD calls it, and append a year to avoid any confusion. --khaosworks 13:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding is that as far as "the BBC" is concerned (and remember that it is very rare that "the BBC" can be said to have a clear view as it's a sprawling organisation) this is a new production with no internal production continuity to the 1963-1989 series (there was no production office for thirteen years for a start) and thus numbering/codes start in their own right. (Similarly Dimensions in Time lacks a production code that might have settled the canocity debate because there wasn't a production office in existance then.)
- Having said that, "the BBC" have given contradictory messages before. At least one season (I think 18) had a break in transmission over Christmas and the restart in the New Year was billed as a "new season" - now there's (at least) one to muck up the numbering! Timrollpickering 00:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think you refer to "The Five Doctors" special which was said to be part of Season 20 when in fact it aired technically in Season 21. (PS. there is a bit of discrepency over the terms "series" and "season", one being British and the other North American. I'll stick with season since that's the term I'm most familiar with; series always sounds awkward, suggesting that each British show is cancelled and renewed repeatedly - 27 times in the case of Doctor Who). In terms of the numbering, I am trying to find the BBC.com feature that explicitly calls the 2005 season Series 27. If I can find it, that will provide precedent since IMO to call it Series/Season 1 is to abandon the 26 series/seasons before it. The DWIN FAQ which says both terms are correct is posted on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website, and therefore is "sanctioned" by them, and the CBC is a co-producer of the 2005 series, so IMO that makes it official to call it Season 27 or Season 1 (or "series" if you like). Perhaps the "rule" should be to not use a number like this at all and make it standard that we use the term 2005 series, 2006 series, etc. From what I'm seeing, this issue is possibly the most controversial attached to this series, far outstripping the kerfuffle over the logo and the fact Eccleston speaks with a Northern accent... ;-) 23skidoo 16:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 5 Docs was always billed as a one-off special. Technically it was indeed part of Season 21, but made in the same financial year as Season 20, mainly due to actor availability. I think it's the latter part of Season 18 that was billed by Radio Times as being a new series/season (both terms get used interchangeably a lot) even though this isn't how the production office and everyone else regarded it. Timrollpickering 17:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- CBC's involvement is more to do with paying out money than anything to do with actual production. The BBC reference would also depend on which part of the BBC is saying it; as Timrollpickering points out, the BBC is a huge organisation and not everyone is a valid source of authoritative information for everything. I would be more persuaded if you could find an instance of RTD or even the production team calling it Season 27. --khaosworks 16:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think RTD has stated that it's only called Series 1 not Season 27 on all production related documents etc. We shouldn't go against that IMHO. PMA 22:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- CBC's involvement is more to do with paying out money than anything to do with actual production. The BBC reference would also depend on which part of the BBC is saying it; as Timrollpickering points out, the BBC is a huge organisation and not everyone is a valid source of authoritative information for everything. I would be more persuaded if you could find an instance of RTD or even the production team calling it Season 27. --khaosworks 16:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 5 Docs was always billed as a one-off special. Technically it was indeed part of Season 21, but made in the same financial year as Season 20, mainly due to actor availability. I think it's the latter part of Season 18 that was billed by Radio Times as being a new series/season (both terms get used interchangeably a lot) even though this isn't how the production office and everyone else regarded it. Timrollpickering 17:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think you refer to "The Five Doctors" special which was said to be part of Season 20 when in fact it aired technically in Season 21. (PS. there is a bit of discrepency over the terms "series" and "season", one being British and the other North American. I'll stick with season since that's the term I'm most familiar with; series always sounds awkward, suggesting that each British show is cancelled and renewed repeatedly - 27 times in the case of Doctor Who). In terms of the numbering, I am trying to find the BBC.com feature that explicitly calls the 2005 season Series 27. If I can find it, that will provide precedent since IMO to call it Series/Season 1 is to abandon the 26 series/seasons before it. The DWIN FAQ which says both terms are correct is posted on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's website, and therefore is "sanctioned" by them, and the CBC is a co-producer of the 2005 series, so IMO that makes it official to call it Season 27 or Season 1 (or "series" if you like). Perhaps the "rule" should be to not use a number like this at all and make it standard that we use the term 2005 series, 2006 series, etc. From what I'm seeing, this issue is possibly the most controversial attached to this series, far outstripping the kerfuffle over the logo and the fact Eccleston speaks with a Northern accent... ;-) 23skidoo 16:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Having said that, "the BBC" have given contradictory messages before. At least one season (I think 18) had a break in transmission over Christmas and the restart in the New Year was billed as a "new season" - now there's (at least) one to muck up the numbering! Timrollpickering 00:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although I disagree with the BBC and RTD on this (I'm personally surprised RTD would go this route), I think the best way to handle it is to simply acknowledge a controversy exists and then go with whatever is the official line. For example, I just added a note to this effect to the episodes list article, stating that the BBC has restarted the numbering but many fans prefer to use Season 27. If we mention that in a few key places then it should head off anyone going in and changing references to 2005 S1 to S27 willy nilly. 23skidoo 13:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Another editor reworded my addition to the episodes article and it works better now. 23skidoo 14:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Quotes in serial articles
Someone has put in a Quotes section in The Unquiet Dead. I'm undecided whether or not this would be a useful addition to the pages. Any thoughts? --khaosworks 21:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's appropriate for an encyclopedia article, really. While it would be suited to a Doctor Who-specific episode guide or fansite, it somehow doesn't quite seem professional enough for an encyclopedia, IMO. – Seancdaug 22:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Probably not, as there is wikiquote. That one might deserve a mention in the notes though, maybe as bad puns along with the Doctor's "happy medium" --TimPope 23:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should each Doctor have his own article instead of just linking to the actors?
I would be in favour of this. --TimPope 17:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) I think this can be justified in terms of reducing the size of the main article. I don't think there is any conflict (I mean there won't be any other articles under the title 'The Fourth Doctor'). --User:DavidFarmbrough 17:03, 19 Apr 2005 (BST)
- Good idea, so long as there is a article somewhere linking them together. How about a template like this to link between Doctors, and possibly other core articles. GraemeLeggett 16:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
DWM comic strip
I'm going to be adding some articles on some of the comic strip companions soon - specifically Izzy, Fey/Shayde and Destrii for a start. Just a heads-up, if anyone else other is familiar with the DWM characters and would like to join in. --khaosworks 14:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. After that, we can start adding companions from the novels and the audios as well. 23skidoo 17:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I did entries for Charley Pollard, Erimem, C'rizz, Hex (Doctor Who) and Evelyn Smythe some time ago. I'd have added Chris Cwej, Roz Forrester, Sam Jones, Angi, Fitz, Compassion and Trix but my novel collection is far enough from me that I wasn't confident. There are also entries for Beep the Meep and Abslom Daak (and of course Frobisher), so it's slowly building up. Once I get those DWM ones done, I'll create a Doctor Who comic strip characters category as well. --khaosworks 18:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What about Stacey from the Radio Times comic strip? I rather liked her. These were written and drawn by DWM strip people...--Dave Farmbrough 8:01, 20 Apr 2005 (BST)
- Yes - Stacy Townsend and Ssard get a mention in the Ice Warriors entry (Gary Russell wrote the strips, and the two got married in the EDA Placebo Effect). The only problem is that the strip was so short lived that there's really not much to say about them, but they'll be in there eventually, I suppose. --khaosworks 11:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What about Stacey from the Radio Times comic strip? I rather liked her. These were written and drawn by DWM strip people...--Dave Farmbrough 8:01, 20 Apr 2005 (BST)
- I did entries for Charley Pollard, Erimem, C'rizz, Hex (Doctor Who) and Evelyn Smythe some time ago. I'd have added Chris Cwej, Roz Forrester, Sam Jones, Angi, Fitz, Compassion and Trix but my novel collection is far enough from me that I wasn't confident. There are also entries for Beep the Meep and Abslom Daak (and of course Frobisher), so it's slowly building up. Once I get those DWM ones done, I'll create a Doctor Who comic strip characters category as well. --khaosworks 18:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So is Eccleston in the Christmas special or not?
Depending upon what press release you read from the BBC, Eccleston is either going to make his final appearance in the Christmas special or he'll bow out at the end of the 2005 season. Likewise there appears to be some contradicting going on in the different articles in Wikipedia (the episodes list article has the Christmas special listed as a Tennant story, and indeed one of the BBC releases says he'll appear in the special). Has a definitive announcement been made about this? The last I heard, both Eccleston and Tennant were supposed to be in the Christmas special, yet the final 2005 episode title "Parting of the Ways" suggests the regeneration may occur then ... but wouldn't have that episode have been filmed before Tennant was announced? 23skidoo 13:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- From what I've heard, the likeliest scenario is that the first series will end on a cliffhanger and then the regeneration will take place at the start of Christmas special, with Tennant. No official confirmation, though. If this is the case, then the Christmas special will be the first Tennant story, much like Enemy Within was the first McGann, not tucked in under the last McCoy, so no contradiction there. The only change I can think of is if Tennant just shows up at the end of the special and doesn't take place in the story proper at all, then it'll be the last Eccleston, if you take my meaning. --khaosworks 14:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking, too. But since no spoilers have yet emerged we won't know for certain. RTD seems to have a thing against showing regenerations - he has stated several times he has no intention of revealing the reasons for the Eighth-to-Ninth change - so I could see him just starting the 10th Doctor cold with the special, perhaps as some sort of preview of the new season. It's becoming more evident that Eccleston was always intended to be a one-series Doctor, so presumably RTD has had this all planned out for quite some time. Personally, Eccleston is proving popular enough that some sort of changing of the guard is going to be necessary to both reintroduce the idea of regeneration to people unfamiliar with the concept and also give Tennant a chance to win over viewers. We've seen in the past that regenerations don't always guarantee continued ratings success for the show, especially if the new Doctor takes too much time to get used to (i.e. Colin Baker). 23skidoo 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I believe Davies says - either in Doctor Who Confidential or A New Dimension - that he isn't against the idea of regeneration. It's just that he thinks it simply makes no sense to regenerate a Doctor that the viewer has no emotional investment in. The reason why regeneration worked for previous generations was because we saw "our" Doctor as dying. With the series returning after 16 years, a whole generation has grown up without their own Doctor - except for the fans - so what sense would it make to introduce, say, McGann, and then within a few minutes turn him into Eccleston? It's confusing for new viewers, and ultimately just not special, and regenerations should be special. Put this way, I tend to agree with him. So I think we'll see a regeneration because Davies is working hard to make sure that people get attached to Eccleston as the Doctor - then hit them with the change for maximum emotional impact. --khaosworks 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking, too. But since no spoilers have yet emerged we won't know for certain. RTD seems to have a thing against showing regenerations - he has stated several times he has no intention of revealing the reasons for the Eighth-to-Ninth change - so I could see him just starting the 10th Doctor cold with the special, perhaps as some sort of preview of the new season. It's becoming more evident that Eccleston was always intended to be a one-series Doctor, so presumably RTD has had this all planned out for quite some time. Personally, Eccleston is proving popular enough that some sort of changing of the guard is going to be necessary to both reintroduce the idea of regeneration to people unfamiliar with the concept and also give Tennant a chance to win over viewers. We've seen in the past that regenerations don't always guarantee continued ratings success for the show, especially if the new Doctor takes too much time to get used to (i.e. Colin Baker). 23skidoo 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, there's no way that the regeneration could actually have been filmed in The Parting of the Ways, because unless they are still filming Dr Who now, it had already been filmed, and Eccleston had left before the confirmation this week that Tennant was definitely taking over next season. So, the probability is that Eccleston would come back to guest the regeneration sequence, and then Tennant take over. From what I've heard, Davies is spinning Eccleston leaving as "now we've got the whole package, our doctor, and our regeneration into our new Doctor", so khaosworks' speculation above appears to be on the money here. RTD isn't "against" showing regenerations, he's just against bringing back an actor to change him into the new doctor, just to please hardcore fans and fit in with their conceptions of "continuity". PaulHammond 13:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see why Eccleston couldn't have finished recording his bit of a regeneration scene and Tennant either already done his or be brought in after the fact. But for our purposes, showing the Christmas Special under either Doctor's heading could be a spoiler, especially as we don't know until it's been broadcast what will happen. I suggest we wait and see and put it in as Doctor not confirmed. User:DavidFarmbrough17:27 (BST) 24 APR 2005
List of Doctor Who serials?
There was a brief discussion over the talk page at List of Doctor Who serials about whether or not the article should be seperated between old and new series. While I don't personally feel this would be particularly useful, an interesting point was brought up: the new series, by and large, is not serialistic, and, as such, including them in a list of serials is a bit disingenuous. While I don't consider this a compelling argument of overhauling the page, I was thinking it might make more sense to retitle the article. Something like "List of televised Doctor Who stories" or something like that, which would both address the above question, and address a similar problem that arises with things like the audio dramas and webcasts, which are, in fact, serialistic, but clearly don't belong on that page. Any thoughts? – Seancdaug 15:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I have no real objections, as long as people pitch in to start fixing all the redirects. :) --khaosworks 15:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This would probably reopen the "should the episode titles be italicized" debate. ;-) Calling it "Doctor Who stories" is too vague because then you could have people wanting to include the novels, audios, etc. since they too are Doctor Who stories. Calling it "televised Doctor Who stories" is also a bit too complicated. Perhaps just changing the word "stores" to "episodes" would suffice. The Hartnell stories that had individual episode titles probably should have these titles noted anyway, and as long as the other titles say (6 episodes), etc. I think it would work. I definitely don't support the idea of splitting the article into old and new series. The numbering may have restarted, but even RTD has stated that this is a continuation of the 1963-89 series. An alternate viewpoint, given the fact that even the 2005 series has a couple of two-parters, is that the 2005 season simply features a number of one-episode serials, much as "Mission to the Unknown" and "Five Doctors" were single-episode "serials" as well. 23skidoo 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno. It really seems that we should specify "televised" in there, somewhere, if only to more clearly distinguish between the various other quasi-episodic media in which Doctor Who has appeared (audios and webcasts, basically). It seems like using "episode" is too specific (since we're not really listing episodes for the original series, we're listing serials), while using "story" without an qualifier (like "televised," or whatever) is, as you say, too general. It's my personal inclination to emphasize precision over apparent complexity, so I tend to favor my above suggestion. As for the alternate viewpoint you mention, it may not be qualifiably wrong, of course, but the question is will the average Wikipedia reader (especially those interested more in the new series than the old) be likely to think of things in that manner? – Seancdaug 17:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, while I'm not too fussed about changing it to "stories" (although "episodes" is right out) I'd like to stick to what we have. It may just be institutional intertia, but it's worked so far, and the idea that this might change in future and we'll get more multi-parters is still a possibility. An even more alternative view is that Series 1 is one huge 13-part serial, since story arc elements like the time war and the bad wolf are and continue to crop up, and things are building towards something. --khaosworks 17:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose. My major concern, though, is still usefulness to readers. We can justify the continued usage of "serial," but that's about it: someone who's only experience with Doctor Who is the new series is going to be extremely unlikely to think of it in those terms, which means we're making it harder for those individuals to get productive usage out of the thing. And our primary concern is what the series currently is, not what it might concievably be in the future: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In any case, "televised stories" covers both the serialistic nature of the old series and the episodic nature of the new series, and so is, in my mind, the best of both worlds. – Seancdaug 17:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- It's just such a damned inelegant way to put it though - "List of Doctor Who televised stories". In any case, I believe "List of Doctor Who episodes" and "List of Doctor Who stories" both redirect to it anyway, so whichever the case, the reader will get there in the end, and the introductory paragraph to the listing should explain things. I think we'll leave it for now until we can come up with a better solution, as it's not that broken. --khaosworks 18:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Another way to look at it is, at the present time and for the foreseeable future, the number of "serials" greatly outnumber standalone episodes and this is likely to be the case for some time to come. And for all we know the 2006 series could go back to multi-episode serials anyway, or a season-long arc a la Trial of a Time Lord. I don't think having it say serials would impact the articles usefulness since, as noted, the redirects are in place and most people looking up this information would already be familiar with the format of the show, if nothing else from having read the main article. 23skidoo 19:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The thing is, I think we all agree that "episodes" is not the term to use. I have been arguing in favor of "televised stories" because it's mutually inclusive, and is unambigiously correct (whereas "serials" simply isn't without a lot of somewhat sketchy and counterintuitive rationalization). Getting back to the point, I still feel "List of televised Doctor Who stories" is the ideal solution: it's longer than the current title, but it's hardly unwieldy, as we've already got other list titles that are longer, like List of supporting characters in Doctor Who, for instance), and while it's marginally more "complex" than the current arrangement, it's also inarguably more precise and less... well... wrong than the current name. The primary reason for keeping the current name ("institutional inertia," as Khaosworks put it) strikes me as pretty hollow when, again, the best we can do to justify it is to stretch the definition so far that the article on Serial disagrees we us (look at the last line: "...abandoned the format"). Still, I'm not having much luck convincing anyone else of my case, am I? :-) – Seancdaug 19:48, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Another way to look at it is, at the present time and for the foreseeable future, the number of "serials" greatly outnumber standalone episodes and this is likely to be the case for some time to come. And for all we know the 2006 series could go back to multi-episode serials anyway, or a season-long arc a la Trial of a Time Lord. I don't think having it say serials would impact the articles usefulness since, as noted, the redirects are in place and most people looking up this information would already be familiar with the format of the show, if nothing else from having read the main article. 23skidoo 19:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's just such a damned inelegant way to put it though - "List of Doctor Who televised stories". In any case, I believe "List of Doctor Who episodes" and "List of Doctor Who stories" both redirect to it anyway, so whichever the case, the reader will get there in the end, and the introductory paragraph to the listing should explain things. I think we'll leave it for now until we can come up with a better solution, as it's not that broken. --khaosworks 18:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose. My major concern, though, is still usefulness to readers. We can justify the continued usage of "serial," but that's about it: someone who's only experience with Doctor Who is the new series is going to be extremely unlikely to think of it in those terms, which means we're making it harder for those individuals to get productive usage out of the thing. And our primary concern is what the series currently is, not what it might concievably be in the future: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In any case, "televised stories" covers both the serialistic nature of the old series and the episodic nature of the new series, and so is, in my mind, the best of both worlds. – Seancdaug 17:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Personally, while I'm not too fussed about changing it to "stories" (although "episodes" is right out) I'd like to stick to what we have. It may just be institutional intertia, but it's worked so far, and the idea that this might change in future and we'll get more multi-parters is still a possibility. An even more alternative view is that Series 1 is one huge 13-part serial, since story arc elements like the time war and the bad wolf are and continue to crop up, and things are building towards something. --khaosworks 17:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno. It really seems that we should specify "televised" in there, somewhere, if only to more clearly distinguish between the various other quasi-episodic media in which Doctor Who has appeared (audios and webcasts, basically). It seems like using "episode" is too specific (since we're not really listing episodes for the original series, we're listing serials), while using "story" without an qualifier (like "televised," or whatever) is, as you say, too general. It's my personal inclination to emphasize precision over apparent complexity, so I tend to favor my above suggestion. As for the alternate viewpoint you mention, it may not be qualifiably wrong, of course, but the question is will the average Wikipedia reader (especially those interested more in the new series than the old) be likely to think of things in that manner? – Seancdaug 17:20, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- This would probably reopen the "should the episode titles be italicized" debate. ;-) Calling it "Doctor Who stories" is too vague because then you could have people wanting to include the novels, audios, etc. since they too are Doctor Who stories. Calling it "televised Doctor Who stories" is also a bit too complicated. Perhaps just changing the word "stores" to "episodes" would suffice. The Hartnell stories that had individual episode titles probably should have these titles noted anyway, and as long as the other titles say (6 episodes), etc. I think it would work. I definitely don't support the idea of splitting the article into old and new series. The numbering may have restarted, but even RTD has stated that this is a continuation of the 1963-89 series. An alternate viewpoint, given the fact that even the 2005 series has a couple of two-parters, is that the 2005 season simply features a number of one-episode serials, much as "Mission to the Unknown" and "Five Doctors" were single-episode "serials" as well. 23skidoo 16:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I strongly think that we should leave the page where it is and titled as it is. It is supposed to be one place where you can find a list of all the televised Doctor Who programmes. As has been mentioned, if you say "stories" someone is going to want to pull in all the radio specials, novelisations, original novels, the stage play, the Dalek movies, Big finish audio stories, Dr Who unbound, etc., etc., because, after all, these are all Doctor Who stories, which would be just silly. making the title into a dictionary definition of "televised story" makes the article have an overlong and unweildy title, which I wouldn't like (plus, someone has to go back and fix all those links from the individual stories). I just don't see what is wrong with the title of the page as it stands PaulHammond 13:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- If you want my vote, "serials" is clear enough, and so far no-one has been able to come up with a better solution. We should leave it alone. Ravenswood
- All this talk about "fixing the links" perplexes me: if we were to move the page, the old one would still exist as a redirect, so that seems like a truly minor problem to worry about. I still think it's a poor title, especially as there's a specific mention on the Wikipedia article on serials that the new series is not serialistic. "List of televised Doctor Who stories" is no more unwieldy than "List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish," where we were clearly willing to sacrifice conciseness for precision. In my mind, the same situation applies here: the use of "serial" is flatly wrong when applied to the new series, and we seem to sticking with it primarily out of institutional inertia that is only going to confuse non-fans who might stumble upon it. Also, just to throw another spanner into the works, the Big Finish plays are also serials, as are the webcasts, the comic strips, and so on. As far as it goes, "serials" is not really more useful than "stories." And at the very least, can we address the fact that the new series is not serialistic on the page, because, as it currently stands, people who don't know any better are going to assume that it is, seeing as how the title and the introductory paragraph say so. I was going to add a note myself, but it seemed very weird to include a note saying how "from this point on, these stories aren't serials" on a page called "List of Doctor Who serials," which led to my bringing it up here :-) – Seancdaug 22:52, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I would consider List of Doctor Who episodes a good option, because the list says of how many episodes each serial is comprised, and works well with Hartnell and Ecclestone stories. --TimPope 16:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As mentioned, "episodes" doesn't really work because the stories were categorised by serial, not episodes. Despite the first Harntell stories, each story had a distinct production block. The same criteria cannot be applied to the Eccleston episodes because the production blocks for those are not organised distinctly (i.e. parts of some episodes share the same production blocks). If we are going to change it, and I am not persuaded that it is necessary to do so, the best name I can come up with so far is "List of Doctor Who television stories", but even that makes me grimace a bit. --khaosworks 17:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- *cough*"List of televised Doctor Who stories"*cough* :-) Sounds less awkward and more precise, and avoids the misleading qualities of the current title. – Seancdaug 18:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds good. And scholarly enough. One other note: At the bottom of the main Doctor Who article, there's a list of links. 'Serials' is quite far down on the list. It should be first, or if not first then at least before 'robots' and 'planets'. Ravenswood 23:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. I keep forgetting: I can just make the change myself. BTW, I changed "serials" to Seancdaug's recommendation so people can see how it looks in context. I think it's OK, but of course if y'all think it's hideous feel free to alter. Ravenswood 15:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds good. And scholarly enough. One other note: At the bottom of the main Doctor Who article, there's a list of links. 'Serials' is quite far down on the list. It should be first, or if not first then at least before 'robots' and 'planets'. Ravenswood 23:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- *cough*"List of televised Doctor Who stories"*cough* :-) Sounds less awkward and more precise, and avoids the misleading qualities of the current title. – Seancdaug 18:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- As mentioned, "episodes" doesn't really work because the stories were categorised by serial, not episodes. Despite the first Harntell stories, each story had a distinct production block. The same criteria cannot be applied to the Eccleston episodes because the production blocks for those are not organised distinctly (i.e. parts of some episodes share the same production blocks). If we are going to change it, and I am not persuaded that it is necessary to do so, the best name I can come up with so far is "List of Doctor Who television stories", but even that makes me grimace a bit. --khaosworks 17:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Khaosworks: "(we've been through the "episodes" thing.. rv it for the moment until we can settle it on the Wikiproject page so as not to keep changing the article.)" -- It's like those (Seagrams?) ads: You always come back to the original. -- Ravenswood 17:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. I'm still pushing for the new title, but, yeah, I don't think we've really got consensus yet. Needless to say, the current title is really bugging me. Anyone have any thoughts on my suggested name ("televised Doctor Who stories")? I agree that many of the other suggestions being bandied about are a little awkward ("Doctor Who television/televised stories," "episodes," etc.), but I'm honestly curious as to what problems people have with my suggestion? Or are you all just ignoring me (lord knows I would...) :-) ? – Seancdaug 19:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Category:Doctor Who audio characters?
Now that we have a category for the comic strip characters, I note that with Charley, C'rizz, Evelyn, Erimem and Nimrod, as well as crossover characters like Frobisher, Shayde, Benny and Iris Wildthyme, we actually have a decent population to categorise them together. Good idea? Better name? --khaosworks 19:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea, and the name is fine (keeping it in line with the comic strip category name is a good thing, IMO). I assume we'll just cross-list the crossover characters like the ones above (and Beep the Meep too, dangnabbit! :-) )? – Seancdaug 19:54, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Spoiler synopses
I'd like to suggest that the short synopsis not contain any spoilers, so that the casual reader can find out what the episode is about without having the end ruined. For example, from 'Rose':
Synopsis
PlotRose Tyler is a shop assistant at Henrik's... |
...Actually, that synopsis is already not spoilerish. At any rate, my suggestion is to change it to:
SynopsisRose Tyler etc etc etc Nestene Consciousness. Plot
|
-- Ravenswood 20:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "Together they stop the destruction of the human race" sounds a little spoilerish to me, to say the least. OK, it's not necessarily a surprise, but it certainly spoils the ending in the sense of, er, telling you what happens. -- Avaragado 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, but you get my point. The 'synopsis' should be spoiler-free (within reason), the sort of thing you'd find in an episode guide. -- Ravenswood 22:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think most of the articles that have the Synopsis-Plot split have spoiler free Synopsis sections, so it'd be a minor move to shift the warning down a tad. It's the ones without that are the problem. --khaosworks 22:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Aliens?
So far, we have these articles referenced in the "See Also" section of the main Doctor Who article:
- History of Doctor Who
- The Doctor (Doctor Who)
- List of supporting characters in Doctor Who
- List of robots in Doctor Who
- List of Doctor Who planets
- List of Doctor Who serials
- Doctor Who spin-offs
- Doctor Who in America
- Doctor Who audio releases
I was looking for information on Movellans and realized that they don't fit any of these categories. Would anyone be up to starting a list of "All alien races (good, evil, or on the fence)"? -- Ravenswood 08:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There actually is a Category:Doctor Who races up which has all the articles so far. There's also a section under List of supporting characters in Doctor Who which list significant alien races. No central listing of all of them yet, though. Personally, I'd chuck the Movellans under any entry for Destiny of the Daleks since they only appeared in that one serial and, AFAIK, haven't turned up anywhere else. Oh, and Movellans fit under List of robots. --khaosworks 08:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "There actually is a Category:Doctor Who races up which has all the articles so far." -- Yes, but it's not linked anywhere from the main Doctor Who page. I'm not sure of Wiki policy yet -- should it be here in this list? At any rate, it may end up being the kind of thing that's too geeky and fannish for a Wikipedia page. But then that makes me wonder if "List of robots in Doctor Who" might be something outside of Wikipedia's scope also. -- Not trying to make waves, I'm new here and I'm just trying to get the feel of the terrain. -- Ravenswood 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The list at least prevents the spread of small articles about each of the individual items on the list, for example an article on Raston warrior robot, which would not be very interesting, but at least its existence is noted. My personal feeling is that the large part of articles on wikipedia are non-notable anyway (try clicking on random page a few times, you'll mostly get place stubs), at least information about Doctor Who concerns a television program watched by millions of people and which is a major cutural influence in the UK at least. --TimPope 09:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "There actually is a Category:Doctor Who races up which has all the articles so far." -- Yes, but it's not linked anywhere from the main Doctor Who page. I'm not sure of Wiki policy yet -- should it be here in this list? At any rate, it may end up being the kind of thing that's too geeky and fannish for a Wikipedia page. But then that makes me wonder if "List of robots in Doctor Who" might be something outside of Wikipedia's scope also. -- Not trying to make waves, I'm new here and I'm just trying to get the feel of the terrain. -- Ravenswood 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Screenshot size
Attn. khaosworks. Are you sure the 300-400px sizes given in the style guide are correct? I was under the impression that Wikipedia requests a 250px maximum on images. 400 seems awfully big. 23skidoo 15:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not aware on policy regarding image size - the reason I chose those sizes is because the infobox is 300px wide, so the classic series shots fit nicely under there. To maintain the same amount of visibility, I upped the widescreens shots to 400px. But if there's an actual policy, then we can scale it down. Can you check on this? --khaosworks 16:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is no policy as to image size: Wikipedia actually encourages the highest resolution (admittedly a slightly different concept than dimensions, but related, at least) images possible, provided they remain under 2MB in size (since you can't upload files larger than that). Scaling is supposed to be done via markup in the articles themselves. Personally, I always try to use image widths that are divisible by 16 (256px, etc.) but that's more personal preference than anything, and I think 400px is perfectly reasonable for widescreen screencaps. Specific details about Wikipedia's image use policy are here. – Seancdaug 17:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Checking that page, under Displayed image size it reads: "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup", or approximately 200-250 pixels of width if you're doing it manually. Larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." So, I think we're good. --khaosworks 18:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is what I was referring to, I think (the thumbnail sizes). I had some larger images scaled back by people citing apparent policy so I'm glad we can go bigger (as I scurry off to increase the size of some of my favorite article images!). 23skidoo 20:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Checking that page, under Displayed image size it reads: "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup", or approximately 200-250 pixels of width if you're doing it manually. Larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors." So, I think we're good. --khaosworks 18:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is no policy as to image size: Wikipedia actually encourages the highest resolution (admittedly a slightly different concept than dimensions, but related, at least) images possible, provided they remain under 2MB in size (since you can't upload files larger than that). Scaling is supposed to be done via markup in the articles themselves. Personally, I always try to use image widths that are divisible by 16 (256px, etc.) but that's more personal preference than anything, and I think 400px is perfectly reasonable for widescreen screencaps. Specific details about Wikipedia's image use policy are here. – Seancdaug 17:08, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd work with a constant width of 300 and either crop the widescreen or accept they'll be less tall. My interpretation of the quote above says to me stick to thumbnail/250px max. GraemeLeggett 20:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Commenting on my own comment Tsk tsk. I just tried a preview using "thumb" as per above and it looks OK, bit small but... GraemeLeggett 20:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm. Let's split the difference for the moment and call it 350px for widescreen. Can always change it back if it looks odd, since it's only the new episodes that are affected so far. --khaosworks 20:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Extra Info for Serial entries
Without getting too hung up on the spoiler issues, I'd like to suggest that somewhere on the page perhaps below plot we should include the Companions and the Setting. eg
- ...Companions...
- ...Time and Space...
- London, 1960-ish.
GraemeLeggett 14:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My main concern with companions is clutter, i.e. whether it really deserves a header of its own if it's just a list. I considered putting it in the infobox below "Doctor", but then it's weird to have a list of fictional names along with all the real ones. Thus far, we've just mentioned their names in the synopsis or plot and perhaps that's enough.
- With setting, we get into vaguer ground, as a lot of it - mostly the future stuff - is speculative and undated (Lance Parkin's work notwithstanding, and even I don't agree with him on some dates). So far what I've been doing is insert dates into the Plot where they are (more or less) certain, or in the notes (like the new series) and I think that's working, but that's just me, of course. --khaosworks 15:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- We could just added a 'Companions' or 'Regular Cast' field where they're listed by the actor's names. Much like it is now with the 'Doctor' in the info box. DonQuixote 15:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The info can go in the synopsis, eg. In Paris 1989, The Second Doctor and Jamie ... --TimPope 16:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with DonQuixote. Most episode guides I've seen list Doctor, then Companions, then other relevant information. I wouldn't consider such information to be spoiler.
- Off-topic, I'd also like to state my opinion that significant recurring characters, such as Mickey Smith, should be considered companions. Ravenswood 19:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Assuming we add an additional field, do we input character names or actor names? Or put the actor's name and pipe it to the character? --khaosworks 21:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Would it look awful to have the left side column read "Companions: Sarah Jane Smith, Harry Sullivan" and have the right side column read "Elisabeth Sladen, Ian Marter"? Never mind. Yeah, that would look awful. I'm out of ideas. Ravenswood 22:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, what about this:
| Doctor | Christopher Eccleston |
| Series Regulars | Billie Piper, |
| Writer | Russell T. Davies |
| etc. | etc. |
...and the character names will appear in the plot summary. Ravenswood 04:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd prefer just to see the names appear in the synopsis. I see no particular need to add the actors' names as the characters' names will be wiki-linked, so the curious can see who plays the character from the relevant page. I am against adding regulars such as Noel Clarke and Camille Coduri... if we go to those extremes we may as well go for the whole cast list. --TimPope 17:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- That would create:
| Doctor | Christopher Eccleston |
| Series Regulars | Billie Piper, |
| Cast | Mark Benton, Elli Garnett, Adam McCoy, Alan Ruscoe, Paul Kasey, David Sant, Elizabeth Fost, Helen Otway, Nicholas Briggs |
| Writer | Russell T. Davies |
| etc. | etc. |
You're right. That is too cluttered. Ravenswood 18:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Stub articles
I am concerned at the proliferation of stub articles at the moment. I'm guilty of creating several in the last week or so, like Jackie Tyler and Adam Mitchell, but I will be expanding on them as soon as information becomes available, and similarly for the serials I have copies of with me. Can I ask that if people create stub articles, they take the responsibility to nurse them to an acceptable level and not just leave them there for the sake of creating a blue link? --khaosworks 04:57, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
List of incomplete Doctor Who serials
I am contemplating rewriting and merging with the Missing episodes section on the Doctor Who main article and putting it all in a new article Doctor Who missing episodes. Any thoughts/objections? I'll probably get around to it after I finish with synopsising Dalek this weekend. --khaosworks 16:18, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Do we want to keep some of the information on incomplete stories, though? Or possibly expand that article to include projects that were never recorded (original season 23, for example, or a third meeting with the Yeti that was planned but never recorded, according to the notes included with the CDs for the other two Yeti stories)? I could see where you could be specific with individual missing episodes, and leave general 'incomplete Doctor Who serials' information in the existing article. Just my two cents. JohnDBuell 16:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
shameless recruiting plug
Hey all, I'm the creator of WikiProject Buffy. I was simply wondering if anyone involved in this project wanted to put in a little time at WP Buffy. I'm not trying to start a membership war or anything like that -- just, if anyone's got a little extra time, we could use an extra keyboard or two. Thanks! - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 01:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
100,000 BC or One Hundred Thousand BC?
Please see Talk:100,000 BC. Should the serial be indexed in the Category: Doctor Who serials under 1 or O? Place your votes there under the appropriate header. I will leave the vote open until 0000 hrs EST on Monday morning, May 9, 2005, and hopefully we'll have a consensus then. --khaosworks 04:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
Story numbering
While we're at it, what are people's thoughts on this? Originally my thinking was (and following the way the Doctor Who Reference Guide has done it) that the two-parters in the 2005 series should be considered the same story, hence 164a and 164b for the Aliens of London / World War Three combo. However, Outpost Gallifrey has listed them as 164 and 165, and the BBC of course considers them Episode 4 and 5.
Arguments for listing two parters as (a) and (b) stories is that neither episode really stands on its own. On the other hand we had stories flowing into each other with quasi cliffhangers before, like the Frontier in Space / Planet of the Daleks divide, which is really one long story. Production codes which helped us in the past don't really apply now. So, thoughts? (a) and (b) or separate? --khaosworks 15:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Consensus appears to be that they should be listed as seperate stories, even though that's silly. I personally think that RTD misfired when he decided that two-parters should have two seperate titles -- it's difficult talking about "Aliens of London / World War Three" in casual conversation, and, frankly, "Aliens of London" is a sucky title. "World War Three (part one)" would be a definite improvement.
- For the record, my vote is that I personally thing that 164a/b would be best, but for Wikipedianness we should go with popular consensus even if we don't happen to agree with it. My official vote: Seperate numbers. Ravenswood
- Unfortunately, I have to agree. For whatever reason the BBC is deciding to treat episode separately. We've had individually titled serials before of course -- most of the Hartnell stories -- but I'm afraid the style of numbering used before no longer works with the 2005 series. An alternative might be to use episode numbers as opposed to story numbers, which would mean Aliens/WWIII would be numbered something like 675 and 676 (somewhere in the mid-600s at any rate), but I don't see anyone else seriously doing this so it's probably more work than it's worth. 23skidoo 20:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't like it, but it looks like it's heading that way for the moment. I'll give this another day for anyone else to chime in about this and then make the necessary changes to the list and the episode articles. --khaosworks 20:24, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have to agree. For whatever reason the BBC is deciding to treat episode separately. We've had individually titled serials before of course -- most of the Hartnell stories -- but I'm afraid the style of numbering used before no longer works with the 2005 series. An alternative might be to use episode numbers as opposed to story numbers, which would mean Aliens/WWIII would be numbered something like 675 and 676 (somewhere in the mid-600s at any rate), but I don't see anyone else seriously doing this so it's probably more work than it's worth. 23skidoo 20:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, my vote is that I personally thing that 164a/b would be best, but for Wikipedianness we should go with popular consensus even if we don't happen to agree with it. My official vote: Seperate numbers. Ravenswood
List of every Doctor-Who-related article in Wikipedia
I'm imagining a page which simply lists, in alphabetical order, every Wikipedia article which related to Doctor Who. It would of course be a lot of work and of limited use.
More useful would be a little button in the lower-right corner of that page labelled, "Add every article linked to on this page to my Watchlist". Now THAT would be something. I've been crawling through all of the Who-related articles for days now (whenever I get a few spare moments) and adding things to my Watchlist, and I'm sure I've not reached the half-way point. Does Wiki have any sort of auto-watchlisting tools? This is going to take forever otherwise. Ravenswood 21:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- That's really what the categories are for. Right now, the most efficient way is to go through the Categories, staring from the top level Doctor Who category and working your way into the sub-cats as deep as you can, then out again. Of course, this presupposes that people properly categorise the articles, but it's a start. --khaosworks 21:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that is useful. Didn't realize it was there. I wish I could just mass-add everything to my watchlist, though. Or have selective "recent changes" buttons. Because I have a lot of Doctor Who pages in my watchlist, but also pages in other categories. I'd like to view only one catagory at a time. (Wishful thinking)
- Another very useful thing is the "What links here" button. Anyone who has ever followed a series of "See also" references can tell you that they often take you someplace unexpected. The "What links here" button is like "See also" in reverse, and you tend to wind up someplace interesting much more quickly! (Example: I was reading the article on Vicki, and clicked "What links here", and was surprised to find a listing for the Empire State Building!) Ravenswood 08:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I've created a Wikiportal page for Doctor Who. If anyone wants to help keep it up to date, check out the page. --khaosworks 18:32, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Character infobox
I've been threatening to do it for a while, so I've created Template:Doctorwhocharacter. I've put up test pages so people can see how they look and give their opinions as follows:
Let me know if this is worth doing. --khaosworks 03:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- nice work, but perhaps you could find ways of putting more than one image within the infobox, which would be useful in some cases GraemeLeggett 10:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- I considered that, but it's ugly. The best option in those circumstances would be to create a single image which incorporates multiple images. --khaosworks 13:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- As an example of how it'd look with mutiple images, see Romana. Not very nice imo, aesthetically speaking. --khaosworks 14:02, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I considered that, but it's ugly. The best option in those circumstances would be to create a single image which incorporates multiple images. --khaosworks 13:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Should there be a standard size for the character infobox image? (and how do you make test pages in your user folder?) Other than that, I really like this idea. (And what about characters who are only in audios, books, or comic books, should we provide a picture?) --Travlr23 13:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- The template is set at about 300px or, 25 em in width, so I've set the image at 200px width for the moment. Right now the images will look weird because the images that I've been using for the companion pages are not of a standard length, so I'm also considering reuploading properly sized images (yet another reason to create test pages and not do this live). I'm open to suggestions as to how long the images should be.
- You can create subpages by simply adding a "/" to the path. These are real pages, but orphaned unless a link is created, of course. Luckily, as an admin, I can easily delete my test pages myself, otherwise to get rid of them you'd have to tag them for deletion.
- We already have pictures of the actors for the audios and I have scans from the comics, but the novels are of course more problematic. I know some illustrations exist out there, I just don't have them, and the ones I've found on the net are not suitable, size-wise, for posting. --khaosworks 14:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- The only literary companion I'm aware of who has ever been clearly depicted on a book cover is Bernice Summerfield but since Lisa Bowerman has since become identified with the character the illustration currently of her with the article should suffice, IMO (she's even in costume). I can't think of any BBC Books covers featuring companions, but then I only have a few of them in my collection. 23skidoo 15:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- Chris and Roz have appeared on the NA covers. Although the BBC Books don't have the book-only companions on the covers, the Eighth Doctor companions have appeared in illustrations published in Doctor Who Magazine. --khaosworks 15:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Benny also appeared in the DWM comic strip for a time, and Chris and Roz were on the cover of "Original Sin." Grant Markham was on the cover of "Killing Ground." The problems are Sam Jones, Fitz Kreiner, Compassion, Anji Kapoor and Trix MacMillian. Granted, none of these characters actually have articles at the moment, but I digress.... The other problem I can think if is with the audios: yes, we have some images of the actors in something closely approximating what the characters are supposed to look like (Evelyn, Charley, C'rizz), but is there anything equivalent for Caroline Morris's Erimem? We can put a picture of the actress up there, but, as lovely as Morris looks, I'm not sure she really accurately represents the Egyptian pharoah from 3000 years ago that Big Finish probably intends. Putting up a picture of her seems roughly equivalent to putting up a picture of Worzel Gummidge in an article talking about the third Doctor.... – Seancdaug 17:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- There have been illustrations done by Lee Sullivan for the Big Finish previews in DWM for Erimem which show her as with the more traditional features of an Egyptian princess. In the covers for the audios, they use Morris's face, with no real explanation. There's also C'rizz, of course, who is by no means human, and has a heavily photoshopped version of Conrad Westermaas's face on the covers he appears on. But those problems aside, which are merely technical, what about the box? Should it go live? --khaosworks 19:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I am favour of the box. --TimPope 19:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- There have been illustrations done by Lee Sullivan for the Big Finish previews in DWM for Erimem which show her as with the more traditional features of an Egyptian princess. In the covers for the audios, they use Morris's face, with no real explanation. There's also C'rizz, of course, who is by no means human, and has a heavily photoshopped version of Conrad Westermaas's face on the covers he appears on. But those problems aside, which are merely technical, what about the box? Should it go live? --khaosworks 19:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Benny also appeared in the DWM comic strip for a time, and Chris and Roz were on the cover of "Original Sin." Grant Markham was on the cover of "Killing Ground." The problems are Sam Jones, Fitz Kreiner, Compassion, Anji Kapoor and Trix MacMillian. Granted, none of these characters actually have articles at the moment, but I digress.... The other problem I can think if is with the audios: yes, we have some images of the actors in something closely approximating what the characters are supposed to look like (Evelyn, Charley, C'rizz), but is there anything equivalent for Caroline Morris's Erimem? We can put a picture of the actress up there, but, as lovely as Morris looks, I'm not sure she really accurately represents the Egyptian pharoah from 3000 years ago that Big Finish probably intends. Putting up a picture of her seems roughly equivalent to putting up a picture of Worzel Gummidge in an article talking about the third Doctor.... – Seancdaug 17:48, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Chris and Roz have appeared on the NA covers. Although the BBC Books don't have the book-only companions on the covers, the Eighth Doctor companions have appeared in illustrations published in Doctor Who Magazine. --khaosworks 15:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- The only literary companion I'm aware of who has ever been clearly depicted on a book cover is Bernice Summerfield but since Lisa Bowerman has since become identified with the character the illustration currently of her with the article should suffice, IMO (she's even in costume). I can't think of any BBC Books covers featuring companions, but then I only have a few of them in my collection. 23skidoo 15:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- We already have pictures of the actors for the audios and I have scans from the comics, but the novels are of course more problematic. I know some illustrations exist out there, I just don't have them, and the ones I've found on the net are not suitable, size-wise, for posting. --khaosworks 14:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Who Image
I think that the logo on the Doctor Who WikiProject page should be replaced with the new logo. Who agrees? Is there a special reason for keeping the old logo or is it just that nobody has bothered to change it?
- It's because the logo on the {{Doctorwhoproject}} and {{Doctorwho-stub}} notices is the McGann/Pertwee logo, for visibility reasons. The new logo does not scale well, and is not readable at that small level. To retain a continuity of appearance, I used the McGann/Pertwee logo on the project page as well. --khaosworks 19:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, thanx for letting me know.
- No problem. Oh, and don't put comments in the to-do list - if you want to query that, put it on the talk page. Also, read the rest of the talk page items to see if any of what you're asking has been discussed. What I am suggesting with the "Missing episodes" page is not a list of incomplete episodes - as you say, that's been done. What I'm talking about is an article about the missing episodes, how and why they went missing. See the Missing episodes section in the main Doctor Who article for what I mean. Again, I've been threatening to do that for a while now, and I'll probably get around to it soon. --khaosworks 10:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Confused
Missing episodes should have its own article, possibly merged with incomplete episodes list?
When you say the incomplete episodes list do you mean the incomplete serial list? And when you say missing episodes do you mean that section of the Doctor Who article.
If so, then I'm sorry for changing the To-Do-List, but please could you clarify this.
- Yes, and yes. Right now the "Missing episodes" section is getting a bit long and to my mind might deserve an article of its own, possibly to be merged with the information from the list of incomplete serials. --khaosworks 15:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Doctor Who in...
Seeing as we already have an article on Doctor Who in America, it would be nice to have similar articles for some of the other countries that have broadcast Doctor Who around the world. Australia, for example, have been showing Doctor Who since January 1965, and New Zealand's first showing was even longer ago. It would be great to see Doctor Who in Australia and Doctor Who in New Zealand mentioning things like broadcast patterns, broadcasters, impact on society (deficit Daleks, anyone?), fan organisations and conventions, etc. I could probably contribute to a Doctor Who in Australia article but I'd be very interested to read about other countries' experiences of the show. Italy? Japan? France, Germany, Netherlands? Asia? Obviously it depends on someone being around with this kind of knowledge but surely it wouldn't be too hard to find information on Australia and NZ. Anyone else interested?--The Brain of Morbius 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I wonder if there would be enough material to make those respective articles qualify as free-standing articles? I have no idea, since here in South Africa we haven't been treated to Doctor Who at all, but the joy of the internet makes it possible for some of us, at least. Dewet 15:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think individual articles are necessarily the way to go, otherwise we could end up with someone doing an article on Doctor Who in Liechenstein. I think a better idea would be to do one big international Doctor Who article covering any countries people want to write about. The US is a bit of a special case, so having it on its own is OK. Likewise it might be possible to make a separate article out of Doctor Who in Canada (it first played here way back in 1963). Alternately the America article could be renamed and expanded to include other countries. 23skidoo 18:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know that Doctor Who in America is more of a special case than DW in Australia or New Zealand. Doctor Who is much more widely known and recognised in those countries and has had a greater impact in there too - potentially very interesting articles. If there's nothing at all to write about DW in Lichtenstein then don't write it - same for South Africa. But a more general DW in Europe or DW in Africa article might be more interesting (difficult to write though). Surely there's room for at least Aus & NZ I would think.--The Brain of Morbius 23:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree; if there is enough information for an article about Doctor Who in a certain country then there is no harm in making one. Maybe there could be a Doctor who in the World article with brief descriptions and links to the main articles (where there is one)
- I don't know that Doctor Who in America is more of a special case than DW in Australia or New Zealand. Doctor Who is much more widely known and recognised in those countries and has had a greater impact in there too - potentially very interesting articles. If there's nothing at all to write about DW in Lichtenstein then don't write it - same for South Africa. But a more general DW in Europe or DW in Africa article might be more interesting (difficult to write though). Surely there's room for at least Aus & NZ I would think.--The Brain of Morbius 23:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Book Synopsis, Book Characters?
I noticed recently that although there is a complete (?) list of the books, that there are no entries for the books themselves. Is this just because no one has done it, or it isn't considered canon or is a spin off? Some of the characters/events in the books are considered canon (to some people) and a lot of entries mention things that happen in the books, (I mean, also, we have a page for Iris Wildthyme) and that some characters in the books reappear from the television series... It would be no problem to go and create entries for these, with a picture of the book, maybe, on the entry. Also, should there be a doctorwhobook template that refers, at least for the Past Doctor Adventures, to the tv episodes it takes place around? And there could also be a category for characters that are only found in the books (we have a comic book characters category...) or important planets that are only found in the books. I volunteer myself to work on this... anyone want to help? --Travlr23 11:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think talking about the books in the same way we talk about the television serials is all right as long as we can keep the two references separate (see "What do we include?" on the main project page and the very first section on this page). I think the best way to lay the foundation for that is to create pages for the book companions first (using the character infobox template), since we already have more or less a set format for companion entries. I would have done that myself as a matter of course if not for the fact that my novels are all far away from me. Perhaps you could start with that, and when we get enough, put them under Category:Doctor Who book characters. --khaosworks 13:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Stub
How many spaces should be placed between the end of an article and a stub? There does not seem to be any defined answer at all, even within Doctor Who articles. Maybe we should have this mentioned on the WikiProject Page. --bjwebb 19:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- My preference for any stub message is to have two empty lines seperating it from the text, just so that the article doesn't obviously flow into it. But I also cannot remember seeing anything about that in the style guides. Dewet 19:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Not really something that we need to put in a style guide, I think. Just whatever looks right to you, I guess. --khaosworks 20:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Minor characters
We've been getting a number of these lately - articles about characters that appeared only once and whose details are really covered in the articles about the episodes where they appeared and are otherwise non-notable. Rather than creating loads of stub articles and/or duplicating information that is already (or should be) in the episode articles, and then finding ourselves locked up in VfD discussions, maybe it's time to create a Minor characters in Doctor Who along the lines of Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and start redirecting. My only fear is that given the 40-year history of the programme, there's going to be a crapload of these entries if we don't have some criteria for inclusion, even when it comes to this list.
Recently, we've had Pete Tyler, which I tried to get up to a decent level, but honestly, it shouldn't have been created in the first place. We've had Doctor Constantine, which is up for VfD, and now the latest one is Mavic Chen, which - to be frank - I don't see the point of. Thoughts? --khaosworks 09:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- If there is no more information that can be found about a character other than what is (or should be) contained in the episode article then surely we should just create a page with the characters name which redirects to the episode about the article. This would save on a really long minor character list. --bjwebb 14:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- That works for me. If there is a bit more to say, it can be added to an article as a subheader. Pete Tyler, for example, could and should be a subchapter of the Rose Tyler article. OTOH Adam, being an official (albeit short-term) companion, qualifies for his own article (just as Katarina and Sara Kingdom do). But single-appearance villains and supporting characters IMO shouldn't qualify for their own articles unless there is something spectacular about them. 23skidoo 05:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)