Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 14

Verity Lambert
An anon has added Verity Lambert to the "creator" field in the infobox. I think that a previous consensus had held that she wasn't actually a creator of the programme, since its principles and format were determined before she came on board. On the other hand, without Verity Lambert the show would almost certainly have disappeared and been forgotten (Sydney Newman would never have approved the Daleks). I can see arguments on both sides here. Let's talk it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one of the problems I've found with infoboxes in general- useful for an overview but subject to hopeless over-generalisation. I suppose if it's not in the article, and reliably sourced, it should not be in an infobox. New TV programmes tend to have many contributors to the format, ethos and artistic direction, but to credit all would seem to be unnecessary. But if anyone can come up with a convincing and sourced argument that Lambert had considerable creative input as opposed to producing it, which even then was more of a project-management type role, I'll buy into that. -- Rodhull andemu  23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this before, on the basis that while Lambert was absolutely undoubtedly hugely responsible for the programme being the massive success it was, there would still have been a show without her. It was offered to Don Taylor and Shaun Sutton before her, and would have been offered to someone else had she turned it down. There would have been a show - it might well not have lasted, but it would have been there. That's why I don't think, no matter how great her contribution, she can be included as a creator. Angmering (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. She did not create the series, just as Waris Hussein did not create the series. She's very, very important to the initial making of the show, but she did not create it. Stephenb (Talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've removed the entry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennant's departure date
removed the 2010 departure date from the list of Doctors, citing WP:CB. I suspect that Drmargi meant to cite WP:CRYSTAL, but even that doesn't apply: WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. ... A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." The BBC has officially announced that David Tennant will leave the role of the Doctor after the four specials which will air in 2009 and 2010. Preparation for the event is clearly underway. Therefore, I think it's entirely appropriate that we list the Tenth Doctor's "reign" as 2005–2010. If you disagree, please explain how this violates WP:CRYSTAL or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I always dislike closed ranges for dates being specified while the range is still current, as we have no way of knowing whether the end date is going to be accurate: that's part of the rationale behind WP:CRYSTAL. It's not impossible that Tennant would fall under a bus tomorrow, in which case the "- 2010" would be incorrect. I prefer leaving a range open until it has actually ended, and leave the currently-projected end date sourced in the article text, because if it's not in the article, it shouldn't be in the infobox. -- Rodhull andemu  14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no infobox with Tennant's end date in this article (although there is in Tenth Doctor). I see your argument about the possibility that some unforeseen event may interfere with the current plans, but I think that the plans are solid enough that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply.  If Tennant does fall under a bus, I'm sure that the relevant articles would be updated very quickly.  I also see two problems with leaving the range open:
 * People will continually be filling in the end date.
 * When they fill it in, many of them will use 2009 instead of 2010, because in Tennant's interview he talked about "the 2009 specials" (of course, he's not involved in scheduling, and the BBC website says the specials will air in 2009 and early 2010).
 * WP:CRYSTAL would, I think, preclude us from starting an article on the Eleventh Doctor right now — but I don't think it forbids us from acknowledging David Tennant's planned departure date. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you add what you can't pinpoint accurately? One minute it's 2009, the next it's 2010, and we can't pinpoint which without taking an educated guess.  Think about what we actually do know.  Tennant will do four specials, one of which is Dec. 2008, one Easter, 2009 and one Christmas, 2009.  Is that his last episode?  We don't know.  Based on Eccleston's departure and the usual broadcast patterns, it is.  Will he appear in the first of the Eleventh Doctor's episodes in a regeneration sequence?  We don't know. But probably not. Leave it out until you know, and that means WP:CRYSTAL does apply. Far better to leave it open, which is accurate, and add a note indicating he's leaving.  So what if people keep adding it? If it's wrong, it's wrong and it gets reverted.  It's a minor nuisance at worst.  Drmargi (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Josiah, it's verifiable information, coming from an official source: there's no reason not to state 2010. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two official sources state Tennant will appear last in 2010, and per "Verifiability, not truth", I see no problem in having 2010 included. If the information changes, we can change it accordingly. WP:CRYSTAL only applies if you want to predict the truth, but all that is needed here is verifiability. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well...the only thing I'd like to say is that if we do list 2009 or 2010, then we should probably also use the future template (or future TV show template) with it...or not. Personally, I think we should leave it blank until it occurs. DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two sources give us "2010". Really, that is all we need. Anything else will be based on our own observation, which borders WP:OR. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed — the most official source says "he will leave the award winning BBC drama Doctor Who when he has completed the filming of four special episodes which will be screened in 2009 and early in 2010." The specials will be filmed in 2009, but the last one will air in 2010 (probably around the New Year) — that's the source of the 2009/2010 confusion.  But the facts are both clear and verifiable.
 * But if people still disagree, perhaps we could file an RFC to see what the wider community thinks. (Or, if we don't want to be that formal, perhaps a note at Village pump (miscellaneous)?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rodhullandemu; although 2010 is the current plan, plans have a way of not happening to plan and we shouldn't anticipate the event. However, a reference can certainly be added noting the plan; that way the information is in the article, but isn't a prediction. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the west coast of the US, so much of what you're using as references hadn't seen print when I last looked. So I'm a bit behind in that sense. I do find the 2009/2010 business inconsistent too, and would argue that alone makes a case for leaving the date open, as does general practice in TV articles. That said, I have also noted there are editors weighing in who, in my experience, will have what they want no matter what, and since this isn't of that much consequence to me, I'm going to bow out. Drmargi (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's say his last appearence is *planned* to be shown in 2010, but David is killed between now when the 2010 episodes are made. His last appearence will 2009.  Even if something is planned stating it outright before it happens is Crystal Ball.  Saying David is planning to leave the role in a 2010 episode is fine, saying he will leave isn't. Duggy 1138 (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, we're only repeating what the BBC has announced. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So there's a difference between actual leaving date (unknown, WP:CRYSTAL) and reported intentional leaving date (fact). The article ought to be clear about which it uses where! Stephenb (Talk) 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifics
Let's clarify what we're talking about here. The only entry in this article which, in the view of some (though not me) falls under WP:CRYSTAL is the tenure dates for the Tenth Doctor in the section Doctor Who. In David Tennant, there's the section head currently titled David Tennant and the succession box at the bottom of the page. There's another date range at Doctor (Doctor Who); and there's the "period_end" field in the infobox in Tenth Doctor. I think all the rest of the references talk explicitly about the plans, and so can't be conceived of as crystal-balling. Right? Am I missing any? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit notice
Given the recent developments, I've posted an edit notice through the Mediawiki interface. It will appear at the top of the screen when editing (not reading) the Doctor Who, David Tennant and Tenth Doctor articles. The text appears as follows: Please let me know if there are any tweaks needed, or if it should be applied to any other articles as well. (Any admin can make the changes.) --Ckatz chat spy  18:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive project
Anything worth including from the Archive Project entry for Doctor Who? there are a bunch of original documents detailing the creation of the show, released in time for the 45th anniversary. Might be one or two bits that can be referenced here. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good find! I've only briefly skimmed the text, but it seems quite interesting and could certainly add insight into how the show came to be. Well worth it for a few of the regular editors to scan and reference the best bits. --Ckatz chat spy  00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Always in trouble
It might seem strange that Dr Who's tardis always appears where there is great danger but such incidents are often such that future history of a race, a planet or even the whole Universe can depend on the outcome of such incidents. The tardis would naturally be drawn to such moments as it travels through time, places where time is not a steady flow but where future time is to be decided by two or more major divergencies in the time stream. (193.250.53.40 (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Nice idea, but is there a reliable source for any of this? Otherwise it's impermissible original research. -- Rodhull andemu  17:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection
On the page history, I counted 17 vandalism edits (Or 17 edits that were reverted, at least). Should the page be semi-protected? -- YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been keeping an eye on this. Most edits have been good-faith, but misguided. We don't semi-protect pages unless the pace of vandalism requires it, and I don't think we've hit that point at present. You can always report at WP:RFPP if it gets worse, but chances are I'll spot it myself. -- Rodhull andemu  18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to fan music site?
I think a link to this site: http://whomix.trilete.net/ would be interesting and useful for people who would like to explore fans' contributions/variations on the theme tune. I have no connection with the site, other than visiting it occasionally for amusement. Aelfgifu (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already listed at Doctor Who theme music, which is probably the right place Stephenb (Talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

External links are biased
Outpost Gallifrey breaches the policy on external links just as much as Kasterborous (and for the record, I am not affiliated with that site). Why is it allowed to be included when others are deleted? This appears to be partisan editing.211.26.126.228 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratings Table - For New Series
I think there should be a ratings table for the new series; including the number of episodes and christmas special (christmas special included in season ratings) can i do this? Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Chromenano (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that if we're going to include this info, we need to include it for ALL of Who - Classic and new, as this article covers both. Etron81 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe create two separate articles for the new and old as this one is quite difficult to read when most people look for the new series rather than the old. Or even include both information in this article and also create a separate one under Doctor Who (revived series) it would probably make it easier for younger people (the main audience) to read and get the information they want (titles of episodes, plots of episodes ect.). Anyone agree? Also I would like to add it would be probably impossible to get information for the older series (series 1, 2 ,3 and 4) so it would if no-one likes the other idea be easier to keep just the new revived series. Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Christmas ratings are trivial; it is biased to list these specific episodes over other episodes that could be considered "special", and is ultimately redundant; episode ratings are already listed in their respective articles. Only an overview of the series' success needs to be given in this article, and not specific episode details; to that end, as Etron81 said, the classic episodes should be included. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well someone deleted the ratings table so i should think it doesn't matter anymore - i cant be bothered to create it again. Pic Editor960 (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would the ratings info be a good thing to create a new page for (to cover classic and new) or work it into the episode list? (I'm thinking both ratings and AI info) Etron81 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Put it with the episode list. I'd be very surprised how much ratings data you'll find, even for the older episodes of the revived series.Drmargi (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ratings data is available for most, if not all, stories of the classic series and is noted in each story's WP page - as noted below, the ratings for the new series are in each Series' page -I was wondering if it woudl be beneficial to fold it into the episode list for ease of reference and comparision between series (Classic and New)


 * You do know that there already ratings listed for the new series on the pages Doctor Who (series 1), Doctor Who (series 2), Doctor Who (series 3), Doctor Who (series 4) 86.131.241.135 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I Have Created Separate Page For Current Series
I have created a separate page for the current doctor who series as it will be easier to read for people just wanting to see the current series episodes and information. Feel free to add information now. Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the page has been re-directed :'( Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * deleted as a WP:CSD and WP:CSD (as well as fork without consensus). -- Rodhull  andemu  21:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh!?!? no idea wht tht means ...Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we have wikilinks. "G7" = sole author has effectively blanked the page; "R3" = redirect from implausible misnomer (as in, nobody is likely to search that title) and "fork without consensus" = creation of new article depending on whole or part of existing without prior discussion. -- Rodhull andemu  22:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Recreated again at Doctor Who (revived series).... 217.155.34.29 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Phenomenal waste of time. I'll decline WP:PROD and WP:AFD instead, where it will be deleted per WP:SNOW as an unnecessary fork lacking WP:CONSENSUS. -- Rodhull andemu  23:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a great idea; it would solve a lot of problems. The current page cant keep growing a split is a good idea. -Chromenano (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New Doctor To Be Announced on 3rd January
Finally!! The speculation will finally be laid to rest and the BBC announces the identity of the new Doctor during the Doctor Who Confidential on Saturday January 3rd! Confirmed by the BBC here: magnius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just seen it on BBC1, the new Doctor has been announced as Matt Smith. He's worked with Billie Piper before, which led him to do this. Can't edit the article... featured! Link to picture: http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/41a_06_matt_243x334.jpg Scoochi2 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Major change in the lead
The lead did not seem to correctly cover a very important fact about the Doctor, that the actor playing him changes and that this is written into the plot.

I've made the following change. 

Before:


 * The show's lead character is currently portrayed by David Tennant.

After:


 * The show's lead character, The Doctor, has been played by ten actors. The transition from one actor to another is written into the plot of the show, and the different parts are often treated as distinct characters.  The Doctor is currently portrayed by David Tennant.

--TS 04:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Added: as Regeneration, and the different parts are often treated as distinct characters to the extent that in some time travel plots they encounter one another and work together. --TS 07:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

11th DR
Is Matt Smith. Who is he?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Smith_(British_actor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulStuffins (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected
Add this:

The Eleventh Doctor will be portrayed by Matt Smith.

Thanks. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

✅, though note you need to disambig the name with (British actor). --M ASEM 18:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh fantastic. Just because he adds the source, he doesn't get reverted. This fucking stinks. I added that TWICE and got reverted in quick succession. I request the edit protection to be REMOVED from this article. No longer necessary, is it? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not a competition. You were reverted because you added it before it was announced, yes you were right but it was still speculation and had no source. Try and be a bit more patient next time--Jac16888 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added it because the programme I was watching was already marked in the article as a source for the announcement, and the person who cast the part gave it away by saying that a 26 year old had been cast in the part. Matt Smith was the only 26 year old in the running for it. I'd say that as the programme was the source, and I was using the programme AS a source, there was nothing wrong with the edit. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You just proved right there that the edit was OR. yes the show is a source, and yes they said he would be 26 and yes matt smith is 26, but there are a lot of 26 year olds, the actors "in the running" are only the ones picked up on by the press there will have been others who were considered, putting the two together was speculation--Jac16888 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The user rejects the idea this was OR. It blatantly was, because there never was an official 'in the running list'. But ignoring that, it is beyond unreasonable to require anybody wishing to verify the addition by checking the age of every single actor who was reasonably in the running, even if you told anyone who you personally thought would be in that list. It was going to be announceed within minutes of your addition, so seriously, what was the point? All you achieved was to get the article protected creating a hassle for others who had the correct information. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The protection is only for an hour, due to the volume of people adding random names. Being on the other side of the pond, I made sure that a reliable source confirmed it (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Doctor-Who-David-Tennant-Replacement-To-Be-Announced-By-BBC/Article/200812115196974?lpos=Showbiz_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15196974_Doctor_Who%3A_David_Tennant_Replacement_To_Be_Announced_By_BBC) and then made Sceptre's edit request.  It's not a matter of who's first, anyway - that's missing the point of WP. --M ASEM  18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He is probably referring to the fact that I upgraded it to full protection for a short time as established users continue like that. I lowered it back to your semi now and it will wear off in half an hour, hopefully most disruption will have stopped by then. Regards  So Why  18:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! An optimist. You don't see many round these here parts. -- Rodhull andemu  18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Citing sources is the name of the game in encyclopedias. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And we are not Wikinews. -- Rodhull andemu  18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

11th Doctor 2010 - ??
The 11th doctor was anncouned in the Doctor Who confidental show where after many weeks and months of speculation the doctor has been anncouned. The new doctor is the youngest ever doctor and at the age of 26, Matt Smith. If you are not familiar with Matt he worked along side Billie Piper on Rubys Dust. He and te new Doctor Who team will return in spring 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroes95mb (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

editprotected 11th Doctor Matt Smith
 * Already done--Jac16888 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Matt Smith page is still being editted by IPs. I think only the tag got added. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So David Tennant did not "use up" a regeneration. Can someone add a note about his attempted/aborted/partial regeneration, just for completeness? I had to verify Matt Smith's number at BBC, and there's still some controversy - Talk:Tenth_Doctor Spazquest (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's speculation still. Just because Smith is the 11th does not mean the 10th didn't use a regeneration in Journey's End. They might just keep the numbering for actors, nothing more, so let's not add anything like that. Regards  So Why  21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding the next (11th) Doctor to the infobox
My addition of the 11th Doctor to the infobox to show both the Current and Next Dopctors (see the version here) was rapidly reverted. I was peeved to say the least at the rapidity, but per WP:BRD here goes:

I am of the opinion that this addition is timely and informative, while not taking up too much space or being overtly recentist (he is going to be the "next" doctor at least until 2010). I am one of what I believe must be the many many people whose eyes go straight to the infobox when first reading an article, so it should be re-added. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * has re-added it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are an encyclopedia and that info is not necessary in the infobox. Otherwise we could also add "previously: Christopher Eccleston" for completeness sake. We got a whole section for Doctors, whole articles. No need to mention anyone but the current one there.  So Why  21:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree completely with User:SoWhy here. This is a not a fan site or a news source.  I notice a similar complaint was made further up the page at Talk:Doctor_Who.  Removing again. -- Chuq (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Expecting a single click from this page to Matt Smith is not unreasonable, without having to go via The Doctor, or Various Doctors, or reading all the way to the bottom of the lead. The infobox is about the only stable place on the page to present that link. If you want Wikipedia not to be fan site, why do you expect people just to know that he is the Eleventh Doctor and go there directly? The need to mention his name is because there was a time when name of the actor playing the next Doctor was unknown. Looking at this page quickly you wouldn't know that situation had changed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a legitimate point re: accessing Matt Smith were it not that his hyperlinked name appears in the opening text of the article, requiring none of the hunt you describe. To my mind, the point of an infobox for a show is a quick summary of what it is right now, not a compendium of what was or what will be. I have an entirely different issue with the "various companions" and "various doctors" usage, since both are characters, not stars, but at least its concise. All we really need there is David Tennant and whoever is the current companion. Matt Smith is what will be, and someone looking for his name will either know he's the upcoming doctor and go to his page as suggested above, or not and discover he will be in the opening paragraph. His name and the explanation of who he is simply clutters the already busy infobox unnecessarily. My two penneth. Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My post recognised the fact that his name is in the (last line) of the article lead (I would be absolutely amazed if it wasn't - but then again, I already know he should be). But by being in the infobox, his name is in a naturally predictable and logical place, and would be of benefit to all three types of people coming to this article - those who have no clue Tennant is being replaced, those who know another Doctor has been announced and are looking for his name, and those who know his name but would come here because they are not so knowledagble of Doctor Who to be able to go directly to Eleventh Doctor, or so knowledgable of Wikipedia disambiguation norms to go directly to Matt Smith (British actor). (Both Matt Smith, and even Matt Smith (actor) which is second from top in the nav bar when you type in Matt Smith, direct you to a disambiguation page of 10 or more people). I am frankly amazed that anybody can think that Next Doctor:Matt Smith is not a reasonable addition to the infobox, I don't see the logic at all, especially when not having a known replacement is just as normal or even more so than having one. For the neatness argument, I can see how people might argue to list all companions when such fan cruft as number of PAL lines is already included, but realy, a link to Matt Smith is bread and butter basic topic target information, it is what infoboxes were invented for. MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)