Talk:List of guest appearances in Doctor Who/Archive 1

Bad feeling
I have a bad feeling about this article. Tim! (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I smell a VfD on the offing, too. --khaosworks 22:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Just keep editing out the fluff and checking the links. GraemeLeggett 10:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Or to keep it simple, turn it on its head and list episode first then actors of note. GraemeLeggett 11:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd to list people who made their first TV appearance in Doctor Who and then became famous later as "celebrity appererances" (Martin Clunes) Morwen - Talk 12:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This definitely needs some cleanup - not least, an introductory paragraph, and ideally something more than just a list. Were these "celebrity appearances" or just well-known actors who happened to get a part? Just how famous or well-known were they at the time of their appearance? There's a huge difference between Martin Clunes, Simon Callow and Andrew Marr, for example. OpenToppedBus - My Talk 15:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Very true, we need to eliminate from this list those actors "doing a job" which includes Madoc, and probably every entry before Tom Bakers days, and retain just the true celeb appearances like Cleese, and the noteworthy actors showing up. GraemeLeggett 11:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is a poor categorisation here, and the data that was there was very incomplete - Beryl Reid, Bernard Bresslaw, Nerys Hughes are definite celebrities who were missing. I've taken the liberty of adding a stack more people - either clear celebrities or those who were "Actors in Doctor Who Before They Were Famous". Perhaps the aggregate data could be then split between the categories? I think that with regard to Philip Madoc, Julian Glover, Nigel Stock, Martin Jarvis, Maurice Denham, Mary Morris, Richard Todd, James Fox, Derek Jacobi etc a case could be made for a third category - but I'm unsure what to suggets for a title - "Well known actors who have appeared in Doctor Who". Litefoot 12.35, 24 July 2005

Could it work?
I don't see how this page could ever work. What's the definition of "celebrity"? Is is a famous actor, or is it someone famous for doing something else, or what? If you count just actors who were internationally famous before they appeared on the show, I think the list could be whittled down to maybe half a dozen names (Cleese, Bron, Blessed, and the Beatles (if you want to be generous)). A cult figure like Ken Dodd, while beloved by fans, can hardly be considered a celebrity, as he's barely known outside the UK. I strongly suggest this list be severely pruned down.Konczewski 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And just to beat a dead horse, maybe we should use the Wikipedia definition of celebrity to decide who goes here.Konczewski 13:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not necessarily wrong, but I'd maintain that there's a difference between "international celebrity" and "celebrity". The Wikipedia page celebrity says it's "a person who is widely recognized (famous) in a society and commands a high degree of public and media attention."  An argument could be made for nearly all the people listed here that they're widely recognized in British society, even if they're not widely known outside the UK. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about national vs international celebs, but since Wikipedia is itself an international resource, it would make sense to err on the global side. Also, I'm still personally thinking that a celeb is someone that talked about in the entertainment press (like a Julia Roberts or a David Beckham), rather than someone who has appeared in TV and/or film.  By the later definition, every single person who's appeared on Doctor Who is a celeb.
 * Perhaps the only definition that would keep this list managable would be listing those who are primarily celebs outside the acting field. This would probably just leave the Beatles, though.Konczewski 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. As it stands, except for the Beatles, it is a list of actors who made casual appearances in Doctor Who and who had an actual acting career. You could do the same with any show, and list all the actors who have something else on their resume besides that show. Big deal. So what. If you want that information, go to imdb.  This is just a random list and ought to be deleted. --Bolognaking 22:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Splitting
My idea split list into


 * Those who were well-known/respected actors when they appeared on Doctor Who - that period roughly starts around the 4th Doctor (and reached barrel-scraping proportions in Bad Wolf -IMHO)
 * Those who became well known after appearing on Doctor who - a much smaller list.
 * Those who appeared several times through out the shows history - possibly without ever becoming well-known.


 * GraemeLeggett 15:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Re your suggested splits - am in total agreement on second one; but surely the first one is too broad - celebrities (Ken Dodd, John Cleese, Trinny and Susannah) are a different breed from established actors. I'd also be careful about saying that the fame bit only started with Tom Baker - Ingrid Pitt, Bernard Bresslaw and Marius Goring are strong early examples of actors with fame appearing in the programme. Re. the regular actors - surely they just fall into the "Doctor Who Actors" category and shouldn't be seen as celebrities/famous actors? Litefoot 21.18, 24 July 2005


 * Unforntately it is a bit of a judgement issue. I agree that there are some well knowns pre D4, just not so many as D4 and later.

Ok, so let's avoid being too prescriptive. What about NOT breaking up the page into other pages but rather re-ordering it into the smaller categories. A case could be made for "Doctor Who Actors Who featured in Soap Operas" too - avoiding the actor/celebrity confusion. Who would need to agree to such a big structural change before it can go ahead? Bit new to this game, so unsure what happens next.Litefoot 14.30, 25 July 2005


 * Definitely stick as a single page! Just fiddle around with the text until you like what you see. GraemeLeggett 14:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't know if anyone needs to agree to it, but as the guy who had the idea for this page originally, I have no problem with it. Essexmutant 14:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Malcolm Hebden
I notice Malcolm Hebden (Norris Cole in Coronation Street) has been added to the list, although I cannot find a record of his appearance on IMDB. I have not personally seen The Seeds of Doom to verify if he's in it or not. Can anyone clarify? Thanks.


 * The BBC website does not list him on the cast list (see The Seeds of Doom, external link). --khaosworks 12:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The charity specials?
I haven't just gone in and added 'em, in case the Project has Rules I'm Unaware Of about what to include, but it would seem to me that the celeb Doctors in Curse of Fatal Death deserve a place in the "Other Productions/As the Doctor" section. Hugh Grant in particular is Really Very Famous Indeed. The Eastenders cast in Dimensions in Time I'm not nearly so sure about, but perhapss they ought to be there too.


 * I presume they're all entitled to be there. Rowan Atkinson and the rest of the Doctors all seem suitable to me - the same applies for Julia Sawalha and Jonathan Pryce. A list of the Eastenders actors who were in Dimensions In Time can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261655/fullcredits - I'm sure Ross Kemp, Mike Reid and Steve McFadden are all suitable, perhaps the rest as well.


 * It's all right as long as it's distinguished from the others with a subheader "Charity specials" under "Other Productions". --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 22:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added them all, splitting out those that played the Doctor and the Eastenders cast. --Essexmutant 11:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Voices & links
As this is a list of appearances, should we specify where guest actors have provided voices only (Anne Robinson, Zoe Wanamaker, Davina McCall, etc.)?

Also, the rule about only linking a name once seems to have been over-stringently applied so, for example, Jean Marsh isn't linked to her article for her Battlefield appearance, but her previous appearance is not only not on the screen but right at the top of the list. Would it be better for this article to link names throughout regardless of the number of appearances? --Whouk (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate linking; is it bad within lists?
Just had my added links reverted, and realised why; they'd (probably, haven't check) been linked previously. My mistake, and I should have thought of this beforehand.

However, whilst this adheres to the general Wikipedia rules (which are good for avoiding excessive linkification), is it really beneficial here? Since this is a list, people will not necessarily be reading it from the start, and will have to check to see if there is a link earlier on. (Even if there is, they still have to search for it). Fourohfour 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree - see my comment just above. --Whouk (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah — I think I'll link anything that isn't linked in the same section, for the aid of readers. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Italics
The article might look aesthetically pleasing - but shouldn't we be italicising all of those TV/film titles, for consistency's sake? Martpol 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should. I'll bite the bullet and do it, and while I'm at it I'll add links, as suggested above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

List order
Which is more useful: an out-and-out alphabetical list, a list arranged chronologically by Doctor Who appearance, or the current hybrid? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say alphabetical by appearance, as then we could stick to one entry per person. &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By "alphabetical by appearance", I take it you mean one alphabetical list for the television series, another for Big Finish and so forth? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I should just have said "alphetical". By appearance I meant "a celebrity appearance" and ended up being very ambiguous, sorry. Alphabetical by name, full stop. Although now that you've raised it, having a separate section for Big Finish etc. might be an idea, as it's less notable than being in the TV series (IMHO). &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity?
Having come here via an article about an episode, I think that some actors are in this list despite not being a "celebrity" (in the sense that it's taken on now). There are a few people in this list who were actors anyway, and their role in the episode was just another job for them. I propose keeping only those who were cast for their celebrity status (eg Derek Jacobi or Hale and Pace), and those who had a starring role in something else later (eg June Brown). This looks like I'm repeating what's been said before but still, it needs emphasising. Actors are not automatically celebrities. Totnesmartin 22:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed. It also occurs to me that, as the list is now, there's no clear reason not to include (at the very least) Davison (All Creatures Great and Small), Ecclestone (The Second Coming) and Tennant (Casanova). And probably many companions as well. This strikes me as somewhat silly. Daibhid C 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Eccleston's got a ton of shit. Hartnell and Troughton were reasonably well known before taking the part, too, weren't they?  But it obviously doesn't make sense to list actors playing the Doctor.  The list is obviously currently too long - it lists pretty much everybody who's guest starred in any Doctor Who episode and also been in anything else.  It strikes me that we  might want to have a separate list of "actors guest starring in Doctor Who," or something similar, and to restrict this list to very obvious celebrity cameo type things.  It does, however, get very difficult to make a distinction - how do we determine which  people were case for their celebrity status?  And why are people who had a starring role in something else, later, countable, but not people who had a starring role in something else, before?  Also, are we referring to a starring role in a television show, only, or what?  Sophia Myles starred in Tristan and Isolde, which came out around the same time as the Who episode she was in.  Anna Maxwell Martin was the lead in the large ensemble of Bleak House.  Do either of those count?   What about Anthony Stewart Head?  Is he a celebrity for his work on Buffy, or just another  actor doing a day's work?  How do we distinguish? john k 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Radio Times listings traditionally showed in the cast listings who was actually considered a "guest star" at the time - see Doctor Who Cuttings Archive (The listings may also shed light on some of the other great debates like companions.) But this format may not have been consistent in later yeats. Timrollpickering 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving this page...
Considering that the term celebrity is so contested and the labelling of people as such is quite subjective, how about we move this page to a new title Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who? That way, those less famous, but nevertheless widely recognisable for work outside of Doctor Who, who do not conform to the more modern and widely recognised idea of a person living a celebrity lifestyle may gain legitimacy for their listings on this page. An example of a notable guest would perhaps be an actor who has been a frequently or significantly recurring or regular character on one or more other television programmes. Alongside the actor's name, as is currently the pattern for entries, the justification for their listing is provided by a brief summary of their major works. From these summaries, readers can then determine the actor's level of fame for themselves and based on this they can determine whether they regard them as a celebrity or just a notable guest. The word notable should hopefully limit entries so not to turn the page into virtually a list of every actor ever to appear in Doctor Who and its various spin-offs. Again, notability is subjective but logic should hopefully stop someone listing, for example, an actor who has only done one episode of The Bill outside of their Doctor Who appearance. Wolf of Fenric 01:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fame
The Fame column seems to a significant portion of the CV of some guests - surely this is best left to the article for those people (in particular, the actors)? For instance, see the Richard Briers entry for Torchwood, which lists almost every well-known role he's had - but this information should have no place in this article. Is this column needed at all? If they are truly notable guest appearances, the actor or personality should have their own article which should speak for itself. At most a single entry explaining their position with a single example should be enough (e.g. "News 24 presenter" or "Actor (e.g. The Good Life) Perhaps time for a prune? Stephenb (Talk) 16:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cutting this article down
The AfD came down as "no consensus" but acknowledged that the article ought to be cut down, as suggested by many of the respondents. My first edit towards this will be to remove anyone who has no article of their own, which suggests that they have no immediate notability, unless there is a specific reason not to. My second suggestion would be to remove anyone only notable for a single other role, but that is, I think, more contentious, so I won't do that immediately. Stephenb (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it: "Celebrity appearances" would include anyone who is not an actor and who would not normally appear in a TV drama - i.e. any TV presenter, politician or pop group appearing in the show(s) are potentially valid celebs to list. That leaves "notable guest appearances", and unfortunately Doctor Who has never had a "guest starring" credit.  So, to my mind this should mean either actors who were in roles that notably (and citably!) generated publicity, have played a well-known character for which they are principally known for, or have a significant body of work that includes leading roles.  Test case: Michael Obiora would not make the cut, as his role did not generate publicity, he is not well-known for a single character (his role in Hotel Babylon is not iconic enough for him to be principally know for it) and he does not have a significant body of work with leading roles.  So, I would remove him, but not (say) Richard Wilson.  Anyone else have an opinion, before I start hacking down the list? Stephenb (Talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously this has gone back and forth (and nobody's responded to this in ages). Apart from publicity, I think it's worth considering the general fame of the person in question, nationally and internationally. There's cases, especially in the recent season and in the anniversary shows, where actors are chosen largely on a fame basis. Others may not have but the performer is notable enough to be worth including, as with Michael Gough. But there's some that strike me as questionable, where even in England the fame is relative. There's a lot of hard-working character actors here, and not to detract from them, but there's no clear rational why some are included and others aren't. Ronald Pickup, for example, was arguably never a real celebrity even in Britain, but he's included while Michael Bilton, known to UK viwers, (and like Who through PBS showings of Britcoms, to many Yanks as well) for his regular or recurring key roles on the sitcoms To the Manor Born, Grace and Favor, and others aren't. Obviously this is a very subjective matter in general (Nigel Plaskitt, say, would count as a celebrity mainly to fans of his puppeteering work or his cough commercials, but that's a fairly small group) but a start at a basic criteria would help. In general, I think any entries which just say "notable actor" or something be examined, either at least one of their highest profile assignments or *type* of work they did (with Michael Gough, who was in the Batman movies *and* Hammer horrors, amongst others, and Martin Jarvis and the like) or taken out. That's just my drive-by thoughts. -- Aleal (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was going to start a subject on the notability of this article or indeed even the point. So Doctor Who has guest stars, so what? It uses actors who have gone on to other things or have been in bigger productions before, so what?Alastairward (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Professor Hobbs/Hobbes
There are instances of both spellings in various dr who articles, i only noticed because the Hobbes spelling was used in a tv guide and i looked up the actor (David Troughton) and it shows the Hobbs spelling there. Is there any canon to cite (script for the episode) or was the name never written down ?

PS i dont like/care about dr who so i wont be fixing this but i thought someone might want to. I'm not usually given to such impish behaviour, being a dragon myself.Machete97 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad
How do you use the same external link twice or more as a reference without it appearing repeatedly under multiple numbers in the references list? Could someone please either fix my error (at the bottom of the Tenth Doctor table) or tell me how I should do it? (Given how long instructions take, I'm guessing the former would be far easier!) 90.210.193.126 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Spoof/piss take?
Sooty and Hi-de-hi now merit a celebrity status? Is there a guideline anywhere as to what constitutes a celebrity as opposed to someone who is simply an actor/actress? Alastairward (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Second AfD
if this article doesn't get tightened up, it will probably go to a third or even fourth deletion debate. while it would probably pass, it would be a complete waste of everybody's time and cause some aggravation. I'm going to remove the least notable names from this, and hopefully add refs for "celebrity status" for who I leave in - that is, they were cast for their celebrity status, or thety became celebrities later. All the jobbing TV actors who remained jobbing TV actors can go. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for removal
I'm getting rid of people who are only notable for being in something else - doing your job doesn't make you a celebrity. However doing it especially well does, so I'm leaving in BAFTA winners etc. Another criterion for keeping is playing a character who has their own article (eg Scott Tracy) - ok this is slightly arbitrary (Thelma from The Likely Lads would probably get her own article nowadays), but nothing is lost forever and we can re-include if I've got one wrong. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent ordering
After examining the extant threads, I have decided to start a new one, as the most relevant one is over two years old, and veteran as I feel, I haven't been working on Wikipedia that long.

As the list stands, the first Doctor's section is in serial airing/viewing order, while the others of the original series have the celebrities alphabetized. Then it's back to story by story. There is also a notable inconsistency in Wikilinking serial/episode titles: some once (usually the first time it appears, but not always), some more than once (again, the first time the title appears is not necessarily linked), some not at all. This gets particularly bad with the new series. A lot of work is needed here, but I don't even which way I should go with it. Help! --Ted Watson (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And again
I know it's been mentioned before, but I'm going to raise the point again. Is there a point to this article at all? How has it survived two AfDs? Celebrities who appeared in Doctor Who? What does it matter? The majority are not celebrities at all, a celebrity would surely be a 'household name', who the hell knows who John Woodnutt is - whose fame apparently is playing a monster in The Tomorrow People in 1973. Are you kidding?

Just taking a random 5 'celebrities' in a row, I checked up on their pages, since I didn't recognise any of their names: Derek Martin Hilary Minster Patrick Newell Tony Osoba Clifford Rose. Of course, on each page their Doctor Who appearance is noted (even if that appearance consisted of a few lines in one episode). Not one of these looks like the page of anyone particularly noteworthy.

Surely the actors listed shouldn't be there at all considering that their appearing in Doctor Who was part of their normal line of work, so again, what's the point of this article?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is a complete nonsense. The bar for 'celebrity' is so low as to make it effectively a list of every bit part player ever to appear in Dr Who. With some effort I'm sure a consistent definition of 'celebrity' could be thrashed out, but really, who cares?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As nominator for one of the AfDs, I really don't know why it should have survived either one. Perhaps if we trim the list or demand a bit more rigour with the definition of "celebrity". Alastairward (talk) 12:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * this is bollocks. i edited out a load of names because they were just actors rather than guest stars, and now a whole load are back. This liat is just a pile of fancruft again. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mid Class Importance?
How on earth is this rated as mid class importance for the Dr Who wikiproject? It's laughably irrelevent and unimportant.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fame/other work
I removed the fame/other work column from the table.

My reason for doing is this; the article used to be a list of "celebrity or notable" guest appearances in Doctor Who. For this reason, a column for showing the alleged or other wise notability or celebrity was needed.

After the third deletion nomination, it was renamed to a simple list of guest appearances. The column I removed became largely redundant, this is a list of guest appearances, the pertinent information is available, name of the guest star, the episode they appeared in and the story.

Other work involving these actors/actresses does not add to our knowledge of the subject of the article and is already included on the articles on the actors and actresses themselves. One might say it is trivial on this page. This is already a long enough article, there is no need to fill it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastairward (talk • contribs)


 * You are out of order here, to revert twice, after being asked to request a third opinion. Instead., you merely restate and revert again. Contrary to your accusation against me, the second in this matter, that signifies ownership of the article on your part, not mine. Either self revert and request a third opinion, or I'll raise this disruption elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I made my edits to improve the article, not out of personal malice against another editor. If you feel that my edits are "extreme" or a "disruption" I'm not sure what else I can say. Please examine my edit history if you feel I edit in bad faith or to prove a point. I control no-one's actions on Wikipedia, if you feel that you must make a complaint against me, I can neither dissuade or hurry you, you must do what you feel is best of course. Alastairward (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your original edit was extreme. Your revert is disruption. Your justification for edit warring is a violation, as you well know, your good faith or intentions have nothing to do with it, since you are acting unilaterally and without consensus, and making accusations to boot. I will take the appropriate action, as it is clear with this reply, despite feedback and experience, you are willing to simply yank my chain, instead of following correct protocol and ettiquette. We will take the issue of your behaviour one way, and discuss the content here, as is standard. You can check my edit history if you need to see credentials before taking someone seriously. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request: Other Work column
Requesting a third opinion over the issue of whether the 'Other Work' (formerly called 'Fame') column is appropriate for inclusion in this list.


 * Article with the column
 * Article without the column

During the current ongoing Afd, the article was renamed from List of celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who to List of guest appearances in Doctor Who.

One editor decided that this means that the list is now a simple list of guest actors, and as such, the reason for the 'Fame' column (to provide some sort of inclusion criteria under the previous title) was no longer necessary, and so removed it as extraneous information, which is readily available in the actor articles. It was then reinserted and renamed to 'Other Work', per WP:BRD. This reinsertion was still disputed, hence the third opinion request. I assert that the column does add value to the List in addition to the actor articles. It is not extraneous information, it does not present a style issue, and thus it should be in the table. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
Ok, here is the requested third opinion. I think the disputed column adds useful information and should be restored. It is true that most of the information is probably duplicated in the articles on the individual actors, but it is useful to see it here. It helps to tell a reader scanning one of these lists why a particular guest actor might be interesting enough to take a closer look at. I think part of the problem may be the column title. I think "Other work" or "Other roles" might be a better choice than "Fame". I also think that deleting the column from all the lists was probably a big enough change that a consensus should have been sought on the talk page before making the edit in the first place, or at least that the deletion should have been reversed once an objection was raised. However, I don't doubt that the editor who did the deletion was making a good faith effort to improve the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now that I read the afd arguments, I see that it has already been decided to change the name of the column. Sorry for the redundant suggestion. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored it on the basis of this third opinion. Thanks for the input. MickMacNee (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I point out that this is not the third opinion, another editor suggested removing the column in the deletion discussion here. Given that I acted in agreement of the opinion of another editor, where does that leave us? Alastairward (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a third opinion has nothing to do with whether or not it was the third opinion offered. Rather it has to do with the fact that it is an opinion offered in response to a request at WP:Third opinion. Of course such opinions are not binding and if a third opinion does not resolve the dispute then the next step might be a request for comments at WP:RFC. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, when I read the thread here on the talk page (there was no mention of the afd in this discussionj) it looked like a dispute betwee two editors. If there were infact three editors involved, then perhaps the request for a third opinion was not appropriate. However, it hardly matters, regardless of which was the third opintion it is clear that this dispute is not going to be easily resolved, which means an RFC or at least a talk page poll (probably advertised on Content noticeboard) on whether or not the column should be deleted is going to be needed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I took this as a two party dispute and thus requested a 3O, Alistair did not mentioned at any time that he did not think he was acting alone, despite knowing I wanted a third opinion and had stated he was edit warring unilaterally. MickMacNee (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was assumed that I was acting unilaterally (is that not bad faith?). Rusty stated above that they didn't doubt I was trying to improve the article in good faith. In all honest I feel a bit put out by all this, I approach articles from the perspective of improving them (if I'm not just here from a browse). I have been involved in far lengthier discussions about article improvements before (for South Park for example) and have been happy with the results, even when they went far and away in the opposite direction to where I had started. All I can take from this is that Mick and I just can't get along, but since we never butted heads before this I can't understand why. One good thing out of this article being deleted I guess is that it'll bury this between us and we can once again edit outside each other's spheres of interest. Alastairward (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get a free pass that way. It is not bad faith to assume you were acting unilaterally, when you fail to mention otherwise. What do you want me to do? Hold a poll? MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
I wanted to mention first, that looking at the deletion discussion for this article, one of the first comments (second it seems) was that the fame column should be removed. I acted upon this and removed it. Just so we know that I wasn't the only one who had the idea of editing it so.

My rationale is as above, that it didn't add anything to the information here except repeat some choice (and whose choice is it?) information from the other character's articles.

There's not much chance of me digging this up at short notice, but (and this is if I recall correctly) on one of my VHS tapes of the show there is a little introduction by one of the guest stars telling us about his appearance and how he was convinced to play a character. That's the sort of thing that adds to an article, but I can't see how it might be added here else to have a large slew of footnotes, which would bulk out this article no end.

I also looked at other examples of lists of guest appearances in TV shows to see how it might look. A very clean and tidy example of such a list is the List of guest stars on The Simpsons. The information is very well formatted and nicely presented. Links are given to all of the guest stars from what I can see. If this article could be trimmed somewhat, I might change my idea about deleting it, but the nature of the show would beget a larger and larger cast list. Alastairward (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like it's vastly useful to have something besides a pure list of people. As long as it's not called "fame," I don't see what the problem is. john k (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * as a fourth opinion, it is WP:COATRACKing - adding content to an article that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual topic of the article. It would also be useful for the reader to know the height of the Matterhorn, but it doesnt belong in THIS article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already provided a 3rd opinion on this dispute, but I am going to respond to your argument anyway. You are correct that the height of the Matterhorn would not be relevant to this article. However, it is relevant to the Alps article, and in fact is included there — despite the fact that it duplicates information in the Pennine Alps and Matterhorn articles. The information on the Matterhorn's hight is included in all three articles because it is relevant to them and it is a useful convienence for the reader to have it in all three places. This does not make Alps or Pennine Alps into coatrack articles or POV forks. Similarly this article is about guest stars on Doctor Who, and providing a little useful information about each guest star, such as what other work they might be known for, does not make this a coatrack article or a content fork, even if that same information happens to be available in other articles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The height of a mountain in a mountain range is of course relevent to the mountain range. There is no indication that the guests appearance on DW was relevent to their ongoing acting career nor that their previous acting career was relevant to their appearance on DW as a guest star. WP:COATRACK. It may be entirely possible to source and create List of actors whose career was affected by Doctor Who but that would be an entirely different kettle of fish from this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can just jump in here, hopefully to give some new perspective, the title change has made things even worse - how are these actors 'guest appearing' in Doctor Who - was there a special credit for them in the titles? Taking one random example - Tony Caunter in 1965 - how was he making a guest starring appearance when he was an unknown jobbing actor (and probably still is!). I can understand a similar article for The Simpsons being notable with the likes of Paul McCartney and Liz Taylor appearing, but the fact that you have to tell people why they are famous says it all really (if appearing in Crackerjack 30-odd years ago does actually make you famous!).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asked for my opinion on my talk page. I don't have super strong feelings either way, but the fame column is going to draw deletion attempts, and I voted keep, and that's why I feel it should be removed.  It needs a lot of work before it will stop being a target, and removing the fame column is the easiest first step.  Ironically, if you want it deleted, I would just leave fame in, and this thing will be gone eventually.  If you want this article to live, remove the fame column, and add references for as many of the people as possible, and remove the rest.  Then take it to Featured Lists, and it should be safe at that point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alistair thinks I want the list in to save it from deletion, so who's right? I see no reason how anybody could delete the lst simply because of this column. MickMacNee (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a different discussion as to whether the article should exist at all. That is an argument for the rfd page. The issue here is: If the article exists, is it better with the "other work" column or without it. I stand by my opinion that that column was the most interesting and potentially useful part of the article as my most likely reason for looking at a guest star list for a series is to figure out where I else I might have known a particular guest star from. I kind of wish someone would do something similar for Star Trek at least for the original series. Of course everthing should be sourced. Though for this primary sources, such as credit lists, should be fine. As to The Red Pen of Doom 's point. I just don't see how coatrack applies here. In the first place it seems to me that there is an obvious connection between the name of an actor who made non recurring appearences in a TV series episonde and a brief list of what else he might have appeared in. In the second place for an article to be a coatrack more than just irrelevance needs to be involved. Coatrack implies the deliberate use of an article to make a POV statement on a topic only marginally related to the topic of the article. Obviously irrelevant information can and should be deleted from an article, but just because an article has irrelevant information does not make it a coatrack, just an article in need of cleanup. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article/list topic is: Guest stars on Dr. Who. Anything not about guest stars on Dr. Who is irrel to this article and needs to go. Other jobs that guest stars on Dr. Who have had is not content applicable to this article - UNLESS we have a third party source that says the actor landed the other job based on the appearance on DW or the source indicates the actor got the job at DW because of their work on a specific other job. None of those sources exist for most of the people on this list and so including that content is not justifiable under any of our policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about coatrack, but it's OR. No reliable source is combining info in that way.  It's all us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The list does not state the Other Work was due to Doctor Who. "Anything not about guest stars on Dr. Who is irrel to this article and needs to go". The Other Work of actors listed is relevant to the article, because the actors are listed in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those actors have been to the Matterhorn too, and the Bahamas - so we need to list the height of the Matterhorn and add a column for the temperature in the Bahamas. And I am pretty sure that each of the guest stars has a favorite food too, so we need a column for that and one for their favorite color and ... -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly expect people to take this line of argument seriously?
 * As seriously as they should take "The Other Work of actors listed is relevant to the article, because the actors are listed in the article." -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I don't get. The list does not link the other work to Doctor Who, but somehow it's relevant? What does this "other work" tell us about Doctor Who and its guest stars? How does it refine the list, how does it add nuance? Before, the column on "fame" at least linked someone's fame to the actor (albeit someone's OR on the matter) but extra work just simply does nothing here. As I linked to previously, the list of Simpsons guest stars doesn't go any further than to note the notability of the subject and link guest stars to episodes. It all looks a heck of a lot cleaner than this list for it. Alastairward (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point however is how are these actors 'guest appearing'? Surely any actor was guest appearing other than the regulars. Taking it as notable actors who are being employed because of their well-known status is fair enough. Certainly John Nathan Turner was well-known for hiring Ken Dodd and Beryl Reid due to their fame and in more recent years Kylie Minogue was hired due to her fame. These are fine, but probably nobody pre John Cleese was used in the show to make a special guest appearance (which is what the title is really trying to say). For example; Pauline Collins in The Faceless Ones - no, Pauline Collins in Tooth and Claw - yes. Massive pruning and I would say the article is fine.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article could use some pruning. At least the AfD has got us talking about how best to improve the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
The recuring point that keeps being made by nearly everyone, including most of those who voted for keep in the third afd debate, is that the article needs 'cleaning up' and I think if the question was framed in terms of 'should a lot of the entries be removed' vs 'delete the whole article', the result would be different. I actually made a post at the end of the debate saying that if it is kept, it should be on the understanding that the list is trimmed, but somebody managed to over-write it with an opposing opinion (by accident I presume).

The basic problem though is that there is never any consensus on the criteria for inclusion, which is what is preventing any progress on cleaning up the article (and in consequence the repeated attempts to delete it)

So, what criteria do we think should be used for inclusion? I think the various suggestions for judging a particular individuals celebrity are unavoidably partisan and difficult to consistently judge, plus they miss the point.

per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.. So for this article to have any relevence, the crucial point is whether the fact of actor/actress X appearing in episode Y is itself notable. i.e. not 'are they notable', almost any actor/actress will be but that only establishes that they have thier own page, nor 'is the episode notable', but is it notable that they appeared in this episode and can citations to that notabillity be found showing the 'wider cultural significance'?

e.g. it would be very easy to prove the notabillity of Kylie Minogue appearing in the Christmas special. It was fairly widely reported on in the media, so good quality citations could easily be provided. I'm sure there are a few other similar appearances, especially in recent times, where notabillity could be shown.

However, if we do take this as the bar to inclusion (and I think it sensible and within wiki guidelines that we do), the immediate upshot would be a massive trimming of the article, as its quite clear that the vast majority of the people listed, while possibly notable in and of themselves, were just doing an ordinary acting job and therefore there is no wider cultural significance to this particular job they did.

I'd suggest that if we do go down this road, there be a fairly long 'running in period' to allow for people to seek out and post citations establishing notabillity.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, some actors/actresses are included who will probably rate international recognition, John Cleese for example. We could list all sorts of notability, Monty Python, his film career etc. And then it goes all the way back to soap opera actors/actresses or a bloke from Blake's 7. Problem is, these latter types may well be better known for something else. What do we take from their character pages to list in a fame/other work column? How much is too much. I think that's why this article earned its previous AfDs. Alastairward (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * that's kind of the point though, I think someone's fame elsewhere shouldn't really be a factor in whether they get included here. It should be whether thier appearance itself was notable. So in theory a complete nobody who got a role could be included if it was talked about a lot in the media, etc (I dunno, maybe someone won a competition to have a role or something like that) or conversley someone very famous had a tiny cameo which nobody really noticed, so that wouldn't get included. If we structure it this way, it should allow us to establish inclusion exactly the same way as its established everywhere else on wikipedia, i.e. citations proving notabillity. The only downside I can see to this is that the argument will instead shift to what cite's are valid. e.g. there are obscure fan publications who will interview anyone who has even been near the show, which could bring us right back to where we started. OTOH, at least people would have to put some effort into getting a cite for inclusion, so it would at least throttle the fluff. But I think the strongest argument is that it aligns the process with normal wiki rules, so there is masses of precident to use as a guide. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not restrict the content of articles, you don't need citations to prove somebody can be in a list other than proving that they were a guest actor in an episode (which doesn't even need a citation, that's self referencing). Without coming up with a standard inclusion criteria, jumping through hoops proving notability for each entry is not a standard approach that I've ever seen. It is only your personal viewpoints that the individual entries must be 'important' or self-justifying, or that only people whose fame came from their appearance should be listed. I doubt you will ever get consensus on that viewpoint, because it is totally subjective. The only sensible issue I've seen raised over inclusion is what constitutes a guest actor rather than a regular cast memeber, but that at least is something that can easily be defined. Your proposed criteria for inclusion to 'cut the fluff', if they are not to be the standard criteria for Lists of People, are either going to be totally arbitrary, or original research. If you are going to require citations for any proposed criteria, you are also going to be in for a world of pain over recentism given the duration of the show, unless you guys want to spend hours in the local library poring over newspaper archive reels. If you guys have such a problem with the list, seriously, just ignore it. It no longer has a POV title, and the current criteria for inclusion are standard. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go with whoever has a source. This search should take care of a bunch of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the link didn't work. Here it is as plain text. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q="doctor+who"+"guest+star"&cf=all - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think everyone has a right to improve an article if they can, it's not really on to warn someone off editing an article. The problem is that now we're only concerned about simply guest appearances, this list could grow even more unwieldy than it already is. It seems to duplicate the information in the existing episode articles which can be accessed by a simple search. Alastairward (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'warning you off the article', I'm pointing out the futility of continuing down an avenue that cannot achieve consensus, and which with this remark appears to be a continuation of the Afd debate - your points about individual episodes has been rejected by the Afd, this article is not delete worthy duplication. If your aim is improvement, there are a hundred known techniques for dealing with unweildy information that do not come down to resorting to original research to define criteria by which you can start to hack out what you personally discount as 'fluff'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot use a simple google search to prove notability for guest starring on a series that goes back decades. The press might have raved about an appearance of someone in the 60s - that is notability established, it does not fade away, it does not need to be reprinted each decade to be justified in this list, which is all besides the point because notability does not control article content. Some of these people were dead before the internet was even invented for crying out loud, and it will be a few years yet before Google indexes every known piece of printed material on the planet. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Was that to me? I'm starting to have trouble following this conversation.  Anyways, if it was, I'm not talking about notability, or whatever, I'm just showing an easy way to find some sources.  It may not be comprehensive, but it would provide enough sources for many hours of editing.  The best thing to find would be sources that list a bunch of guest stars at a time.  Probably a book or magazine article that isn't available online, or maybe it is available, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I refed some to show what I mean. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything in the closure of the AfD addressing the fact that the information is duplicated in the articles. It did mention trimming though. How do we balance the fact that this list is supposed to be a list of guest stars with keeping the size down? Are guest stars simply anyone who has a speaking role but is not recurring? Or is there some notability concerned? Alastairward (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we go with what reliable sources say, then we don't have to think about anything. It's all up to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The biggest problem with this article is not the content, but the lack of sourcing, and if you fix that (which includes eliminating anything that can't be attributed to a published source) all the rest of the problems will take care of themselves. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are tv credits not sources in themselves, in the same way that an episode is a source for a plot? Whether the entries are sourced or not doesn't take away from the fact that it makes for a very large list either. Alastairward (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are, but by that criteria, every person listed in the credits should be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we returning then to celebrity/notable stars? Alastairward (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess, if by that you mean ones mentioned in reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we apply some common sense here? Surely a 'guest appearance' means someone who has been employed due to their well-known status. This list can only comprise of people who were (reasonably) household names BEFORE their Doctor Who appearance - therefore the reason why they were cast - and why they're notable for appearing in Doctor Who. This would wipe out most of the 60s and 70s - but not all (Peter Butterworth would probably be ok for instance). So common sense - yes, original research - in a way, but can someone just be BOLD and do it before we're all too old to care (which is about one more day for me!)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends if we want people to keep nominating it for deletion. Sources avoid original research, but more importantly they establish notability and allow us to forget about this article and not worry it will be deleted.  I think you're right about the one more day thing.  I'm starting to not care. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What interesting is, if you read the first post on this page, it's the same conversation from 4 years ago, back when AfD was called VfD. Pretty funny.  It talks about sources, and the weird columns, and everything.  Ha!  Apparently in all that time, I'm the only one to actually add sources, and I don't even like Doctor Who. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To MickMacNee, if the only criteria you use for inclusion is that they appeared in the show (i.e. the credits), the page by definition becomes a list of all cast ever to appear, which is precisely what the other list already does. For this article to serve any purpose it needs a different definition. One road to go down is the 'celebrity' definition, but clearly that doesn't work as over time it inevitably trends towards the comeplete list of cast, as there is no independant way to define celebrity. What I am proposing is to effectively re-define it as 'notable guest appearances in Dr Who', so there is a criteria for inclusion that the appearance itself was notable, rather than the person. This is exactly the opposite of 'my opinion' as there are clear ways to define notabillity which can be discussed and subject to critical review with citations, something that is painfully absent from this page, hence the ongoing controversy. I think in practical effect this will largely serve the same purpose as 'celebrity' (peregrine fisher's post is a perfect example) as that is the most likely reason for something to be notable, but it can be defined and used per normal wiki guidelines so it is workable. Yes there is a danger of recentism (although there is a vast amount of material out there on the show), but conversley there really were very few notable celebrity appearances prior to JNT, and the real rise of this was the new version, so it wont effect many and the work to find them will be limited. I think the actual real world impact of recentism will be pretty limited. As to my just ignoring the article, why should I? I have as much right to voice an opinion as you do, and frankly by trying to find a way to clean up the article and find a more workable way to run it I think I'm trying to advance the desire of most editors in the AfD debate that the article needs cleaning up, whereas as you seem to be overly precious about leaving it exactly as it is, which I don't think is the majority opinion of those who have commented.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we take all the ones without citations and put them on the talk page, and then build it back up from there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if the supposed non-OR/POV/RECENT inclusion criteria were proposed here for consensus or otherwise before any content is removed. Because it remains a fact, this is not a standard approach for lists of people, precisely because it has inherent flaws. Removng content without any idea of the criteria is just pointless vandalism. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A list of cast members is not the same as a list of guest actors. And it is quite bizarre to believe every single cast member of doctor Who is going to have a biography article. Everything else you said has already been addressed above, repetition is tedious, so I won't do it, except to say, it is simple to cite facts, it is impossible to cite this kind of POV notability to everybody's satisfaction, not that it is even required by any guideline that exists, because notability does not dictate content - that is frankly Wikipedia GNG 101. This proposal will not be a 'simple' exercise at all, I have seen it attempted across many lists, it never works. MickMacNee (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The other list includes the vast majority of the people here, plus the regular cast (who are far in the minority numbers wise compared to 'guests' due to the inherant nature of the show). If you insist on the most incluive possible definition of this list, it inevitably will be a subset of the other list, plus I think you are going directly against the clear majority opinion which is that the page needs some serious trimming. There are clearly serious problems with this page, it wouldn't have been proposed for deletion three times otherwise, nor would there be so much discussion. Right now we have three editors propsing changes and just you opposing them. You seem very strident in opposing any proposed change at all, but there is a clear consensus that some change is needed. How about you make your own, workable, proposal on how the list could be cleaned up and made more relevent, rather than just shooting down any alternative proposed by other editors trying to move forward constructively.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody has actually proposed anything concrete for me or anybody else to support or oppose yet, so you can get off that horse right now, it is not appreciated. 'Use a source to prove notability' is not a concrete proposal in any way shape or form. And seriously, wtf is 'just delete anything without a source'? Come on, that is not going to fly as an attempt at 'article improvement'. I won't be making my own proposals for reasons I have already stated. Please, if you don't understand my objections, just re-read my previous posts. I absolutely cannot stand having to repeat myself. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps if you actualy read what other people are saying with an open mind and engaged in debate, you wouldn't find yourself repeating over and over again. I've made very specific and measurable suggestions, which you are mis-representing and ignoring in favour of a blanket insistence that the article stays exactly as is, despite a clear conensus that it needs to change. You are in the minority with this opinion and frankly your editing style is aggresive and a long way from assuming good faith, so your repeated issuing of warnings is entirely inappropriate. I suggest you tone yourself down a bit, take a step back and think about a better way you can interact with rest of us editors, who all have just as much right to make proposals as you do. The way this is heading there will be another outbreak of 3PO, RFC and various other steps ups, which frankly are not needed if you can just engage in a constructive discussion to improve the article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't warned you for anything, so that comment of yours is nonsense. If you think your proposals are truly specific and measurable, please show it. Please, propose a concrete proposal, I personaly am not stopping anybody doing that, despite the insinuations otherwise. I will welcome an RFC if it gets some actual concrete proposals here. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My proposal was at the top of this section, but I don't mind repeating myself. I suggest that we look for where the fact of artist X appearing in episode Y was in and of itself notable, i.e. it is the notabillity of appearance we look for rather than the individual. This would effectively turn the article into Notable Guest Appearances in Dr Who, which I think is actually what most people expected of the article under its old title, and gives it a clearly defined purpose distinct from its current itteration of 'every artist ever to appear in the show', which duplicates an existing list. This definition is clear and precise, could be easily referenced with citations and can therefore be judged empircally without personal pov. I further suggested that if adopted there should a long 'running in' period to allow citations to be sought before and removals so as to avoid a 'mass delete'. Whether you agree or not, can you please assume good faith that this is a serious and sensible proposal, put forward with the intention of improving the article, and attempt to debate it politely and rationally without resort to abuse or accusations of vandalism. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems strange indeed that this article has been nominated three times and seems to be creeping closer to deletion, and someone apparently concerned doesn't wish to propose a means to keep it before the next, inevitable AfD. Also MickMacNee, weren't you warning others of not being civil, you might tone down your own posts a little. Alastairward (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I warn people when they deserve it, which you certainly did and still do. I am not in the habit of making snide insinuations about others and then hypocritically talking about civility in the same breath, unlike yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, I checked the credits for a recently watch Who story (Invasion of Time) and the Whovians simply seemed to add all those non-regular characters who had talking parts. Is that a way forward or not? Alastairward (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Include only actors for whom reliable sources have been provided, remove the rest after a suitable waiting period

 * Support, as I've started this straw poll. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Contrary to some of the comments I see in the discussion above. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to come from a published source. Otherwise it is subject to challenge and removal. This is basic to WP:NOR, which is as close to sacred as any policy (except possibly WP:NPOV) the Wikipedia community has. Lists are absolutely not excempt from this policy! Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reliable sources for what? To simply show they appeared, or to show they meet some as yet undefined inclusion criteria? If its the first, please don't make work for others when you know full well the list is accurate. If the second, then get the criteria agreed first, otherwise this proposal is simply mindless vandalism. MickMacNee (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Waste of time obviously. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, vandalism is an entirely inappropriate term to describe what the users above are trying to do. Why not give us your idea for the article improvements, or do you see the article as fine as it is? Alastairward (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to mince my words Alastairward - Fuck Off. If you feel the need to reply to any more of my posts here with your utter bollocks, don't. If you want to dispute this post, I really dont care, post a complaint at ANI, WQA was clearly pointless with you as I now realise, I have no more time for your utter piss taking shite. MickMacNee (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are the criterion. That's it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case I think you could even use primary sources such as show credits, but you have to be able to point to something to show you didn't just make the stuff up. The requirement to list your sources in one of the few areas where we (as a community) don't assume good faith on the part of an editor. Speaking of assuming good faith, I agree that the "vandalism" comment was not helpful, and I hope we tone things down and proceed without personal attacks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Show credits can be used, but then basically every actor who has been on the show is then included. They don't discriminate, at least not like this article is supposed to be doing.  Sources are the best, but this article would probably take 100 hours to source.  I think the amount of work is really the sticking point.  If it was easy, I'd just source the thing, and this conversation would be over. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support if a clear definition for what we are trying to provide citations for is agreed. I don't think just appearing in the credits is enough, but do think that whatever system we end up with has to be underpinned with a citation rather than opinion.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I would agree with this, but unfortunately sources for actors in the 'classic' series would be hard to find. This is exactly the sort of thing you would need, but running a similar search for Beryl Reid in Dr Who produced just a lot of fan pages etc - nothing of similar weight (and realistically there won't be). Perhaps however we could look to articles such as this which show the wide-ranging and long-running career as well as awards won etc (although the DW appearance isn't mentioned - the fact that they're in the cast list of a particular story is uncontroversial anyway and doesn't need to be cited as a link to the story's page will provide that). However, I will say again though that this can only apply to actors who were well-known at the time of their DW casting and not afterwards, otherwise they were never a 'guest star' on the show - this can be seen simply from a chronological list of their acting CV.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no serious proposal here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack tag
All prior discussion is pretty clear, WP:COATRACK has got nothing at all to do with this article, so I suggest the tag added here be removed, as nonsensical. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article previously listed celebrity or notable appearances in Doctor Who. It was renamed mid-AfD with the result that we could avoid having to note what constitutes celebrity. But now, we're sitting here on the talk page talking about notability and how to cite it. It might suggest that the renaming was to simply avoid the deletion process and not to actually change the purpose of this article. Until we can define what we want to do with this list, it should stay as a warning. Alastairward (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * COATRACK has got absolutely nothing to do with anything you just wrote. MickMacNee (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

POLL: Does the article need to be trimmed and/or cleaned up in some way?
Leaving asside for the moment the issue if what mechanism is used to do this, what is the consensus opinion on the quality of the current page as is? To make this specific, please vote 'No' if you are happy with the article as is and see no grounds for any substantial change. Please vote yes if you think there are substantial problems with the article which require a major change, specifically that its scope be narrowed and the list shortened to something more specific. Once this is agreed, one way or the other, it can then underpin further discussions on how this could be achieved or else provide a mandate to leave it as is. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes per discussions elsewhere I think the current page is bloated and duplicates an existing page with no independant mandate--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. ThePaintedOne, stop making pointless polls that show fuck all, and just serve to piss people off. MickMacNee (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a single poll which tries to address an underlying issue here which has been much discussed both on the AfD debate and in the talk page above. The reason for the poll was because I've been claiming above that I beleive most people think the article needs a trim, but have no direct evidence to support it, so it seemeed a sensible and positive move to actually establish that. Or alternatively to show a consensus that the article should stay as is, in which case I'd happy to abide by the consensus and leave it alone. ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, got to agree with MickMacNee on this one! Hey ho --Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs a massive trim, but it needs to be done at the same time as a sources search. There may be some DW book that someone at the DW wikiproject knows about that would provide sources for a bunch of the older ones.  Google News search isn't accurate for older stuff.  I think a lot of people agree about what this article needs.  Despite MickMacNee's comments, they aren't removing any sources.  So, a more appropriate question may be "Is anyone here going to spend their limited time improving this article"?  If no, we can all move on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This debate I see from this page has been running now for 4 YEARS. It's about time someone actually did something, so I've had a stab at starting a trim. I've trimmed down the First Doctor's guest list to a sensible length and using common sense based on their work as per their Wikipedia articles. At least if there's going to be an attempt to source it, let's make it a workable length to begin with. If this is reverted then obviously the reverter is looking to stubbornly keep the article as it is and let the debate run for the next 4 years.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As they say, there are many ways to skin a cat :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the article is an ungodly, unreadable mishmash of all types of unsourced trivial content and in need of clean up to the point that it is near unsalvagable at this point. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards unsalvageable at this point myself. I've voted in 100+ (probably way +) AfDs, and I vote keep about 99% of the time.  But, this article is crap, and it's looking like it may never get any better. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Doctor stories
Made a trim to this section. I've kept 2 because they were noted film actors by this stage and Bernard Bresslaw because he was currently well-known for Carry On and had had a moderately successful singing career. Not sure about David Troughton though - was he cast in this role because he was Patrick's son? I'm leaning towards moving that out as well. Any thoughts?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm American so I don't know much about DW. Could you cut down the tenth doctor table?  I've started refing it a bit, and maybe we can kinda finish it off to show what this article could be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go, but many of the 10th Doctor actors were indeed notable guest stars - having had a look, the majority are well-known, at least in the UK. These would probably be quite sourceable as well.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks better. As long as they are sourcable, then they should stay. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've gotten the first 10 or so sourced. I didn't find one for Silas Carson or Alistair Appleton, so I was thinking about removing them.  Thoughts? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When I get time, I'll see what I can add from archived or cached versions of BBC online promotion and press releases (which included profiles or video interviews with the celebrity guests). Taking Appleton first, though, there's the fact that he appeared as "himself." You managed to find a Daily Record piece on Derek Acorah's appearance in the same episode, but it basically had several UK TV personalities in cameos as themselves. The fact that, as of now, one article has been found for one and not for the others doesn't, to my mind, alter the nature of the guest appearance. Outside of documentaries and the like or same-name sitcom character situations, as a rule, appearances (in fictional TV or film) by any person as "himself/herself" inherently suggests at least some degree of celebrity recognition for the target audience (in this case, at least in the UK, if not in the US). In some cases, it can eventually lead to being famous *primarily* for appearing as one's self in fact (the Dr. Joyce Brothers factor, so to speak). So to sum up, I think "himself" entries fit, and outside of print and web sources, once someone feels like getting around to it, I'd be very surprised if the DVD commentaries don't say anything about it.


 * On the other hand, Silas Carson isn't particularly a celebrity in the UK or US and it's not even an appearance but a voice-over. Inherently, costumed monster and voice-over roles are the least likely to be notable, except when explicitly promoted (as with Zoe Wanamaker) or in a variation of the "as themselves" rule (Anne Robinson and other quiz presenters as robot versions of themselves). Carson's only in the list at all because he happened to have been involved (in heavy makeup or under creature costumes) as a recurring supporting player in all three Star Wars prequels. So it connects Who to Star Wars, which is neat, but that's all. Of course, all this still brings up the issue with the name change and defining guest appearances, but right now, to avoid being a mere list of cast members, I think the current development process is moving in the right direction. -- Aleal (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Carson was only left in because he had appeared in Star Wars - three times, but feel free to remove it, I've no objections - we're pruning rather than expanding. As for anyone appearing as 'themselves' I think they all have to be left in - because that surely defines a 'guest appearance' - even if some of these people are extremely minor in comparrison to some of the acting careers we've taken out - apologies to all them by the way!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Third Doctor trim and a question
I'm posing this as a question and example, rather than as a particular point, if that makes sense?

Paul Darrow, of Blakes 7 fame, has been left in as a guest star in Dr who and Sillurians. But this episode was made several years before Blakes 7 and from taking a quick look at the biography on his official website it's not at all clear that he had any significant fame at this point in time, beyond being a general actor working in UK TV. So should he be kept in based on his later fame?

With his later appearance in Timelash, I think that's clear as he was a notable and recognised actor by then, but I'm not sure the same is true for the third doctor story.

Again, this is posed more by way of an example than wanting to argue the merits of his particular career, if you see what I mean?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I get what you mean, it bugged me about some of the notable stars. There are actors there who seemed to be chosen simply because they were decent character actors, British TV seems to be abound with them. Alastairward (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this was my point (Pauline Collins in The Faceless Ones - no, Pauline Collins in Tooth and Claw - yes). I would remove Darrow from Silurians - as there was in no way he was a guest star then, but Timelash - yes (Blakes 7 probably being the reason why he was cast). Don't have a citation for it but it's fairly uncontroversial he was well-known by then.

Spin-offs section
I'm sure a lot of it just fine, but we may want to get rid of some of it. I don't know which parts are good and whic aren't, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, with a lot of that once you take away the regular stars there probably wont be much left that's very notable, so I suspect they'll vanish by themselves. e.g. I just took out all of 'K9 and company' as the only two people listed were obviously just regular actors doing thier job.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've never seen the shows, so I'd have to look up every actor for those types of sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes to go along with each name
I tried out something new, adding some extra info for one of the guest stars (glatiss). Do you think it's a good idea. The border doesn't look quite right, but you get the idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not convinced. Having just made the collective decision to remove the 'other work' stuff this seems a retrograde step that opens the door back to where we just came from, if you see what I mean?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the difference is that we wouldn't be including personal opinion, but what the various reliable sources say. It's easier to not do it, though, so I'll take it out if you still don't like it.  People can click on the episode article and possibly find the same info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No sorry, seems to be dragging it back to 'other work'. The reason I thought it was unnecessary to start with is that each name had a link - if you want to know why they're famous - click on it.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It wasn't going to be notes on why they were famous, but about whatever.  In that case, the article mentioned what they were famous for, so I included it for fun, but that was kinda coincidence.  The fact that he wrote several episodes before acting in the show seemed appropriate, but I don't care too much either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from with Gatiss, but I think that it would start to creep across the article as others added 'interesting stuff' to different artists. That way lies madness! To be honest I think it would also tend toward triva--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At best, I can see an "Other Doctor Who connection" note, which is trivia but avoids the random or arbitrary selection aspect. In the case of Gatiss, League of Gentlemen (outside of being his main claim to fame) is irrelevant, but the fact that he wrote for the series prior to his guest appearance seems significant and, as much as his fame, to have played a role in his appearance (I'd be surprised if the DVD audio commentaries or BBC press release or whatnot didn't mention it). Perhaps the best way to handle that, if including it at all, would be as a footnote, perhaps next to the source. This seems particularly relevant if the fact of multiple Who contributions or a return appearance from someone who (as a relative unknown) had been on the earlier series is trumpeted in the press or in interviews or other suitable sources. -- Aleal (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's right that you took it out again, Peregrine, but your work on this article is really good. Citations is what it needs. The article is moving in the right direction - finally!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So this is an 'improvement' yes?

 * We have 'inclusion criteria' determined by 'common sense' for actors in earlier series, despite this being textbook WP:OR,


 * We have 'inclusion criteria' determined by Wikipedia articles for actors in earlier series, despite this being textbook WP:OR,


 * Much of the unreferenced 'inclusion criteria' comes from 'Other Work', the listing of which has bizzarrely been removed from the article as irrelevant!


 * Later series actors, who can at least be Googled in true recentist POV fashion, have been referenced to all sorts of things as an 'inclusion criteria', from DVD credits and TV guide listings to tabloid Daily Star / Digital Spy junk copy, with no indication in actual policy as to why this was done at all, and in direct ignorance of the fact that WP:NOTE does not limit article content any more than subjective personal opinion does

So this is improvement? Seriously? This hacking away at the list in this manner is just making the article a worse violation of WP:OR than before, and means it is even more worthy of deletion now than it ever was, resting as it does wholly on misunderstanding and misuse of policies, in favour of subjective ideas of how it should look. Consensus is not a couple of people agreeing that their flawed understanding of policies is correct. You can get a hundred people to agree on something here, if it is still a basic violation of policy, it's still wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It ain't finished. Anyways, it's an improvement in that it will help stop the AfDs, and brings it more in line with out rules.  As far as you liking it, I guess it's worst.  I might care if you actually worked on the thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One plus point is that we're calmly discussing it amongst ourselves now. It would help if we could have some sort of idea of what defines these guest stars, are they simply actors/actresses appearing in one story/episode with a speaking role (distinguishing them from regular cast members). Or are they celebrities? In which case we're back to where we were before. I appreciate the work being done here, but are we really making this any different than the way it was before? Alastairward (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, yes 'common sense' is OR, but how else can we begin to work on the thing? There is no way you're going to find proper (non-Doctor Who fansite) references for someone who appeared in an episode of a show 45 years ago. What was the criteria before then on who was chosen and who not? It was always unreferenced. And basing other work on Wikipedia articles is not without merit - as those articles themselves are referenced. There was never going to be an agreement on what constitutes a guest star - the last 4 years have proved that. Instead of criticising - do something about it then. Delete the whole mess once and for all or revert it back and spend the next 4 years debating, but I think you'll be doing it on your own.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the simple rebuttal is to point out using your own logic that you cannot possibly use a Wikipedia article to source this article, if that article about an actor in programmes 45 years ago cannot itself be sourced!. So clearly, one of those statements is false. The only way to source something is to use a source, which is why removing all the 'unsourced' entries unless or until someone who does know you can source things properly pre-internet comes along. In that case, hacking away at the article keeping entries simply based on the other content of Wikipedia, is just utter wrongness, and is certainly no improvement on anything that was here before, going on the 'common sense' approach that it didn't contain any obviously fake entries at that time. Now, you have actually made more work for the people who do know how to properly source an article, because nobody has even had the good manners to leave a permanent link on this page to the comprehensive contents that could possibly have been be sourced if someone with knowledge of the subject came along, rather than someone working from tertiary sources and their own 'common sense'. Ironically, it is the 'defining a guest star' that is the easiest thing to define using common sense (if we absolutely must resort to that approach to assuage the 'something must be done' camp), if you committ to working from facts, not opinion (which there is in spades in the deliberations above, despite one of the stated goals apparently being to not resort to opinion). If this actually came up for deletion again, I would vote delete now, as the article is now definitely POV, OR, unreliable and argubably of little of no use, being as it is an utterly bare list of names and episodes with token variable sourcing. MickMacNee (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are enough sources for the early years, they just aren't indexed by google. There are DW books, and with the correct pay-database account, one can search old magazines and newspapers.  This article will probably take 10 years of editing to finish, but whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been quite noticable that over the last few days that you haven't been editing, several of us have worked together in a collegial atmosphere, discussing issues politely and co-operating together to improve the article. Please feel free to join in, but I don't think any of us want to go back the acrimonious arguing of before. If you don't agree with the current consensus, just leave us to it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I took some time off Wiki because one of the so-called collegial people here could not stop personally attacking me and generally being a dick. And as I said above, it doesn't matter one bit on here if a group agrees on something, if in their misinterpretations and misunderstanding of Wikipedia they are going utterly against policy, and simply hacking at an article unnopposed because nobody wants to get involved (and the giveaway is that someobody always claims this is the 'consensus' - which is patently wrong if any of the claimers read that page in any detail). Given the fact you don't address a single point raised above (and the only person addressing it here is effectively saying 'well, yes, but so what?') then I think its pretty clear what's going on here, and it certtainly isn't policy based 'improvement' of the article. I can't 'join in' any more than telling you what you are doing wrong, if you choose to willfully ignore that, don't pretend you are doing anything but stonewalling contrary opinions. I can't give you anymore feedback than what was already true before you started, the renamed article was fully in compliance with the Lists of People guideline, and was actually usefull as well. If I actually go on any more repeating the same issues time and again, without anybody bothering to read a single policy or guideline put infront of their faces, then ironically it is me who gets it in the neck, not the stonewallers. The only change anybody can credibly call an 'improvement' is the sourcing the basic fact that somebody appeared, but even that is hardly an improvement on what was here before given the fact this only covers barely 25% of the content and is sourced from all manner of reliable or unreliable places. If I had any faith that the mechanisms here adequately defended people against attacks when they attempt to enforce policy against sheer weight of stonewalling, and required the people making changes to actually know policy and show it, I would revert. As it is, this is just a majority rule free for all (I use majority in the loosest sense, as all it takes is two determined people). The arrogance of some of the edits given the opinions of just a week ago, let alone four years ago, is astounding. The lack of any policy informed response to the coatrag tag section above is typical of the this entire page currently, made worse by the fact that you apparently removed it after all because you think you 'fixed' the problem. I had hoped, wrongly it seems, that someone who actually knows what a coatrack is, had seen the tag and had simply removed it as the utter nonsense it was. Without masses of feedback from uninvolved but knowledgable editors, in my experience, you simply cannot counter this level of utter wrongness. It's just an inherent flaw of Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person I've seen being abusive around here is you. You've ignored consensus, mis-represented or ignored other opinions, made personal attacks, aggresive posts and generally been uncivil ("f**k off you lying hypocrticial c**t" was a particular highlight). As this is something you have a long track record of, through a series of articles with numerous other editors, and for which you have been repeatedly banned, I've no intention of trying to address this with you as plenty of better people than I have tried and failed in the past. It's up to you where you go now, as you clearly don't agree with everyone else editing, you can either start an edit war or just go and edit elsewhere. Whatever you want to do though, I personally have no interest in responding further to you on the talk page, as it clearly just puts more fuel on the fire and it's quite apparent we aren't going to find a common ground to compromise on.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot compromise with someone who thinks baseless mud slinging is an acceptable replacement for addressing points of basic fact and established policy, which in terms of 'local consensus', uninformed vocal, or even silent opposition, means absolutely nothing at all. Read the actual policy sometime. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee, as ThePaintedOne pointed out above, we're not the ones mud slinging. The previous version that you insist we adhere to, with the changed title, a long list of characters and the "other work" column, was one entirely of your own making. Why can we not be bold and have a go at editing this to try and improve it? Can't you copy a section to your own sandbox and edit it there to show us how the article should look? Alastairward (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point, given the evidence that there is no absorbtion going on at this page whatsoever. I don't mind expanding or repeating points where misunderstood, but the level of apparent incomprehension here in the face of repeated information can only be described as willfull and deliberate. As for you, if I didn't think it was utterly pointless, I could easily compile a comprehensive timeline of your comments and actions that shows my reply to you, as you came looking for me on my own talk page, was richly deserved. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A demonstration via a sandbox edit might be more practical, that's all. It's just a friendly suggestion. Alternatively, you might give us a diff for an edit you disagree with here and suggest improvements, or do would you prefer the article was left with the name changed but the content as it was prior to the last AfD? Alastairward (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could give you a hundred diffs that exhibit patent nonsense recently, including yesterday, but you wouldn't have a clue what I was on about. You don't even know what a COATRACK is, so seriously, what's the point? I am not going to waste my time pissing around with a sandbox for you, unless or until you demonstrate you know the first thing about WP:OR/WP:POV/WP:DICK. MickMacNee (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)