Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 17

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11 December 2007 and 31 January 2008. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Be prepared for a flood of AFD nominations
A few Wikipedia users have declared a vendetta against articles on fictional characters, concepts, locations, etc as they are of the opinion the topics must have real-world significance. In other words, if Sara Kingdom has not made a notable impact on world society, they'll want that article deleted. They've started with articles based on Star Trek but it's only a matter of time before they get around to Doctor Who. It's because of zealots like this that I quit contributing to Wikipedia for a long time and it looks like I may be leaving the scene again. So if anyone is sitting on House of Lords discussions about Adric, or have a newspaper clippings about how Peri Brown discovered a cure for cancer, now's the time to add them. 23skidoo (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are users who would be prepared to delete most doctor who episode articals, we should be making sure we heavily mention all notabilty on these pages before people look over them and make them at risk, I personally had to watch all mighty boosh episodes loose there pages, (although its not exactly on the same scale as doctor who).--Wiggs (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll just have to "out-universe" all the "in-universe" articles (about time too), and have non-bbc references added. A simple assertion of notability would be useful (eg significant role of actor). AfD is a good way of improving an article, but a flood of AfD's at once will overwhelm us. Just when did the Black Guardian become an editor here :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should start a page for characters like this - particurly in the wake of the AFD result of Adam Mitchell, and the likelihood that less important characters will have their pages nonimitated. Stuart  DD  contributions 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For most DW characters and episodes, I think ABOHT(T) and the sources it uses will be fine to pass WP:FICT. Will (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, issues regarding how the articles are written isn't an issue. I fully agree that articles written in "in-universe" style need to be fixed and I personally fix them when I can. My issue (and we're seeing it now involving various Star Trek and James Bond film character articles) is that if someone hasn't written a Ph.D thesis on Mel Bush and gotten it published by Penguin Books, these folks would want her article gone. I've also seen a bit of a dangerous precedent set with the nomination of Dax (Star Trek) for deletion because articles on Jadzia Dax and Ezri Dax already exist. I fear that could open the door for some keener to target Doctor (Doctor Who) using the rationale that the separate Doctor articles can be used to cover the topic, or (worse yet) try to get the 10 Doctors merged into one. We're alredy seeing a little preview of this with the current proposal to merge Shalka Doctor with the main Doctor character overview article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Companions in Doctor Who could function as a nice list article with short bios on all the characters, some casting information and small mention of other media appearances. Only characters established to have significant real-world notability (for example, Sarah Jane Smith or Jack Harkness) would stand out as individual articles. Of course, with "Primary" or "Secondary" companions never referred to as-such in series, we have problems distinguishing characters like Rose (important, but the article's a mess) from minor ones like Adam.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would go along with an article like that, particuarly in the wake of the Adam Mitchell AFD - and the likelihood of less signicant companions being AFD'd as well. Stuart  DD  contributions 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or how about simply Recurring characters in Doctor Who or Supporting characters in Doctor who to encompass Jackie & Pete Tyler, Jake Simmons etc.? Could Sarah Kingdom not be merged entirely with the serial she appears in? You put a picture of her in the continuity section and appropriate her lead into a discussion of whether or not she "counts" as a companion. It would make more sense in context on that page anyway.~ZytheTalk to me! 08:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already a List of Doctor Who supporting characters, but I think it should remain as it is - a linking point to other articles. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity Images
I was going to start working on fair use rationales again and wanted to get the thoughts of others before I get to far. I personally think screen shots can be defended for articles relating to episodes, items and characters, where free images are difficult or impossible to acquire. But many living actors have articles that are included in the Doctor Who Project. These tend to have images that are screen shots and probably should be deleted (I don’t plan to nominate any of them, but I don’t think they should be defended if they are nominated). Then there is the gray area of deceased actors, again screen shots or publicity photos are probably the best we can hope for. Finally book and album covers make me nervous, I like the visual reference, but most covers are art in there own right, and including them is probably a copyright violation. futurehawk|talk  17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Book covers used to illustrate articles or sections of articles relating directly to them are perfectly acceptable. That's been established by the Novels WikiProject which pushes for first edition covers to be shown whenever possible. That applies to articles based upon the books themselves, and articles on serials with sections on novelizations. Same goes for album covers. No need to be nervous there as long as the article being illustrated is either completely about the book/album mentioned or contains a section in which the item is discussed. Other uses are harder to defend. Once upon a time it was OK to use a book cover to illustrate articles on authors, but no longer. And magazine covers are no-nos in almost all cases unless you're doing an article all about DWM #321. As for "celebrity images" Wikipedia policy changes every 6 weeks on this (or so it seems). Last I heard the general rule of thumb is unless you took the image yourself or are able to get the copyright holder of the image to release it, you're pretty much hooped and that includes images of people now dead, too. There's a bit more flexibility regardings screen shots used to illustrate articles on a particular episode or film, but I think those rules are changing, too. It's one of the reasons I no longer contribute images to Wikipedia. There is a faction of editors who would be quite happy to see all images removed from Wikipedia, sort of like has been more or less done with some of the European sites, rendering them ugly and useless, in my opinion. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A possibly useful source for establishing notability
The review of the Series Three DVD box set at PopMatters has some intelligent criticism about Doctor Who in general and aspects of the new series in particular. If people are looking for sources to establish notability for episodes or characters, this review has lots of potentially useful content. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unfamiliar with PopMatters - what makes it more significant a source than buyer reviews on Amazon.co.uk for example? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A Google News search might prove useful too for reviews; I found some about Doomsday on Saturday, and I think for some episodes, they'll be easier to find. Will (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New Series Production Codes
I've just noticed that TV.com has production codes listed for all the main episodes of the new series - How realiable a source is TV.com for these sorts of things? If reliable, should these be added to their relevent pages? (Etron81 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

Image for deletion
Please provide imput at —  Edokter  •  Talk  • 09:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A new non canonical appearance for the Doctor
Just a little heads up for the members of the project. The Tenth Doctor makes a brief appearance in the Extras series finale. I know that those of you in the UK won't get to see this for another ten days so I will try not to give too much away. The setup is that after leaving his sitcom Andy Millman is having a hard time getting work. His agent keeps trying to get him to appear as a monster on DW. He resists but finally gives in. David Tennant is in full costume. The assistant is not Rose or Martha. The scene is quite funny in the context of this Gervais/Merchant series, but, it has little to do with DW as a whole. I am not sure how the project is going to want to handle this as the scene is shorter than the Jim'll Fix It appearance but you may have editors who want to include it at the List of Doctor Who serials and other spots so be aware. MarnetteD | Talk 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been more parodies like this, and no one tried to include those. Remember David's appearence on the Catherine Tate show? And Tony Blair's regenerating into the Tenth Doctor ("New labour, that's weird!") in Litle Brittain? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't little Britain, but yeah, the point still stands.--Wiggs (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was Dead Ringers myself - the YouTube clip certainly has their regular Blair on it. What next, do we add "Christmas at Doctor Who's", featuring the Troughton, Tom Baker, McCoy Eccleston and Tennant Doctors (all either recast or played by their Dead Ringers regular) in a special encounter? Timrollpickering (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, all the examples cited above are covered in the Doctor Who spoofs article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Images for speedy deletion on List of Doctor Who villains
There are several images for speedy deletion that are used on the above page. Can people please make sure we have fair use policies for all images used. Here is a list of the ones that I have found. Image:Imageofthefendahl.jpg, Image:Fenric.jpg, Image:Finch (Doctor Who).jpg, Image:Ragnarok.jpg, Image:Jagrafess.jpg, Image:Sharaz Jek.jpg, Image:John Hallam.jpg, Image:John Lumic.jpg, Image:Malus.jpg. Stuart DD  contributions 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd do this myself, but I am not entirely sure how the image prodedures work. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We also have Image:Harrisonchase.jpg. Stuart DD  contributions 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've sorted it by providing fair-use rationales. I'm no expert on images, either, but I think this is right... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it. Thanks for linking them btw - I wasn't sure how, as the usual way displayed the full phto.  Stuart  DD  contributions 11:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Sil (Doctor Who) with List of Doctor Who villains?
Should we merge Sil (Doctor Who) with List of Doctor Who villains? i don't think Sil deserves a separate article. Stuart DD  contributions 13:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm for leaving it as is as he appeared more than once. I'd be more for merging Celestial Toymaker who appeared just the once, although I'm not going to propose a merge because I have no problem with there being lots of pages on Wikipedia. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against the number of pages on wikipedia, I just don't think that SIl deserves his own page, even if he(?) appears more than once. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sil is quite well known as Doctor Who villains go and is one of the key ones for the Sixth Doctor's tenure. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Though, I admit I cannot back that statement up with external sources... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Definite merge, he has no real-world notability.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't get what people have against entries about fictional creations on Wikipedia. Could someone explain this to me please? If the thing is well known enough why does this need support from the 'real world'? I know it's Wikipedia convention, but it's a daft one to my mind. I do, however, admit the page needs citations, (e.g. properly referencing the serials Sil appeared in, at the very least), to lend the article credibility as a Wikipedia encyclopaedia entry. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They probably want to delineate between something like the Britannica, which has articles on general topics such as television programmes or time travel, versus something like the Encyclopedia of Superheroes, which lists everything related to every superhero character in every medium. DonQuixote (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the fact that it is a fictional character - and I'm not really complaining about notability - I just don't think that this particular character deserves a separate page because I don't think he is that important. I will defened pages of characters that I do think are important.  Stuart  DD  contributions 11:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, but as Sil is the villain in two serials, (Vengeance on Varos and Mindwarp), making him akin to the Rani, the Mara, Omega, the Meddling Monk and Lady Cassandra in villain stakes in Doctor Who, why single him out? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not singling anyone out - I found this article and thought that it didn't deserve a separate one. I didn't know we had the other ones (espeially Mara).  If you want me to propose a merger for those as well, I can.  Stuart  DD  contributions 10:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussion, no consensus for merger. Stuart DD  contributions 20:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about multiple episodes on WT:EPISODE
Hi. A discussion on the episodes MoS is here. As an article under the project's scope is used as an example, you are encouraged to contribute. Will (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor
Not to get too excited (and this definitely mustn't go into the encyclopedia yet), but this evening the continuity announcer introducing the rerun of The Sound of Drums on BBC Three at 1900, referred in passing to the rumors that John Simm, who plays The Master, will be the next Doctor Who. Of course a continuity announcer is just an exceptionally chatty fan who happens to be sitting at the right microphone at the right time, but still, it's interesting to see how persistent that rumor has been.

As I understand it, David Tennant is contracted to play Doctor Who through the fourth season, and in 2009 there will be just three specials, all featuring Tennant. So the earliest we'd see a series starring a new Doctor (assuming Tennant leaves, which seems likely though not inevitable in that timescale) would be 2010. It would be a long time for someone of the caliber of John Simm and David Tennant (and both are among the highest regarded stage, screen actors of their generation) to wait around. --Tony Sidaway


 * Tennant was on Newsround saying he's doing 4 specials after Series 4, (which I take to mean the 3 announced specials and a 2009 Christmas Special), and despite Catherine Tate's comments saying he's off after Series 4, he says he has yet to make a decision either way. He could be being diplomatic, (and trying to avoid another Christopher Eccleston departure nightmare]]), but for now we should assume he's here for Series 4 in 2008 and 4 specials in 2009. I suggest the John Simm/James Nesbitt/Daniel Radcliffe/Harry Lloyd/Jennifer Saunders/Rhys Ifans rumours all be treated with a pinch of salt for now... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Correction - probably a 2008 Christmas Special, then the 3 announced specials which may or may not include a 2009 Christmas Special, not a Christmas Special in 2009 bringing 2009's total to 4. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Original research
There are discussions about the nature of OR at Talk:Donna Noble and Talk:The Sound of Drums. This is just a simple notification.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrid
Please contribute to the merge debate going on regarding Astrid Peth going on here. As I have stated, I think the article is suitable to remain as is. Also, merging would clutter the "Voyage of the Damned" article. People are claiming the information present on the Astrid Peth article could be included on the VOTD page - but where exactly? Under which category does the casting and conception information fall? Cast notes - already quite long owing to the reappearance of various actors in Doctor Who? A separate Astrid section - in which case the article should remain? Other one-off companions have their own articles - Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway and when before even the production staff, cast and crew knew she'd be back full-time, Donna Noble. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should create a list of companions in Doctor who page similar to the villains one - have a paragrph or so about less nmotbale companions and link to those which have there own pages. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who decides who is less notable? It's highly subjective. I consider each companion notable by the sheer fact that they are effectively the second main character, or joint second main character in instances of more than one character, in the episodes they appear in. Doctor Who fans and casual viewers alike remember the companions they watched. Indeed, I've heard people say they can age people by which Blue Peter presenters and which Doctor and companion/s they remember watching as a child. Who would go on such a list? I doubt you'd convince many editors to agree to a merge for older companions. So, a list consisting of just Sara Kingdom, Grace Holloway, Adam Mitchell and Astrid Peth, for example, would be pretty redundant in my opinion. To my mind, the companions are just as an essential part of Doctor Who as the Doctors - that's why after The Deadly Assassin the programme makers insisted on reintroducing companions despite Tom Baker's claims he could carry the show alone. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the suggestion is that all companions would go on the list(s). If they're notable enough to have their own articles, we'll link to them. Otherwise, we'll just have the description there. Whether the description should also be there for companions with their own articles has yet to be decided. Personally, I think this would be a good idea in principle, as we can't guarantee that all one-episode companions will have outside notability as Astrid and Adam Mitchell do. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes that was the suggestion - it was basically to suggest an atricle for the merger of Adam Mitchel (the result of the AFD being merge once apropriate article is found) and Astrid (given that a high amount of people support a merge to Voyage of the Damned). I agree with Wolf that they are all important characters, but unfortunately some wikipedians have a problem with fictional characters - so I am trying to get a page where we can put them into if they ever get nominated for deletion.  Stuart  DD  contributions 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we should go ahead and make this list regardless of whether we keep Astrid's article. We already have lists of more minor Doctor who subjects, such as villains, and there's definite use to such a list. I guess that's something to get to work on, if no one has any objections. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is such an article necessary if it is just going to consist mostly of links? We already have the list in table form on the Companion (Doctor Who) article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We have plenty of list articles on Wikipedia that are simply collections of links. Nothing wrong with that. I'm thinking we should probably cut out the list from the Companion article, and just link to the list article. This allows us more leeway to give short descriptions of them (or longer if they don't have their own article). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not a collective effort to improve the articles? Even companion articles that I imagine would survive such a proposal need improvement with real-world citations. For example, I found Susan Foreman was tagged for not citing references. I've added episode references to remove the tag, but it still needs real-world citations. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

More Doctor Who Game Info
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/pc/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=20071218152331453030&releaseId=20071218144843109001

Talks about the upcoming game and gives us some info on it. Not a lot but there is apparently more in the magazine. Anyone have it? 86.156.43.240 (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Episodes featured topic.
Hi. I've been other the past few weeks polishing some articles for FLC and the like, for the purpose of making a featured topic for episodes, which would include, and current status: I would appreciate help with the "incomplete" and "titled"; can help on the latter please be done on User:Sceptre/lotde so as not to get wires crossed, please. Thank you :) Will (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC), modified 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) and 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles in this scope have all been rewritten; polishing until the remaining two are put on FLC would be appreciated. Will (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

New article up for deletion
created List of Dr. Who Films, which I have put up for deletion - see Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Who Films. Stuart DD  contributions 14:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know?
I've added the two Who-related "Did You Know?"'s to the list of articles on the Project page - I think we should keep track of them, particularly as there's no easy way to track them down after they're removed from the Main Page (took me ages to find the date for the Rose one). It's not quite the honor a featured or good article is, but it indicates decent quality new articles (since all DYK's come from new articles, or recently expanded stubs). And listing them here may encourage/remind people to submit new articles to WP:DYK. --Brian Olsen (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image for deletion
Image:Ninth Doctor.jpg is up for deletion. See  Stuart  DD  contributions 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I could have guessed... just because I edited it to add a link. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday (Doctor Who) on Featured article candidates
The above article has been nominated for FA status. If you wish to support, oppose, or leave comments, please do so here. Thank you. Will (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If it makes FA, someone make sure to let the deletionists know who are trying to get all episode articles banned from Wikipedia (see Bells (Blackadder), for example, which is currently the target of repeated AFD nominations). 23skidoo (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

More images for deletion
Image:Theemptychild.jpg is now up for deletion - see. Also Image:3doctardis.jpg is up for deletion - Stuart DD  contributions 15:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another one
Image:10dr19.jpg is also up for deletion- at  Stuart  DD  contributions 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In case the name of the image is unfamiliar, this is the montage of all 10 Doctors that was created for use on the main page as well as the article on the Doctor himself. I remember when this image was created and how happy everyone was with it. Unfortunately the Wikipedia fair use paranoia gestapo don't care about such things. Anyone who wants to archive this image would be well advised to do so as soon as possible. 23skidoo (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand why some editors might object to using screenshots in the episode articles as they really don't serve a purpose other than aesthetic (as opposed to an image of, say, the sonic screwdriver in its respective article). Personally, I really don't mind one way or the other.
 * As to the ten Doctors montage, it's useful in the Doctor article as it shows all the actors who played the part on the show. I'd vote to keep that one.  Same goes for similar images (sonic screwdriver, regeneration, etc.). DonQuixote (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Results of the discussion were to keep, but remove the logo in the center. For anyone who wishes to discuss what (if anything) we can put in its place, I've started a bit of a discussion on it at Talk:Doctor (Doctor Who). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Themasters.png should under go a similar cropping, the use of the logo is not supported there by WP:NFC either Fasach Nua (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast and reception sections
Hi; it appears to be you folks who take most note of the audience Appreciation Indexes for episodes, including them in the Broadcast and reception sections of articles, so I thought I'd let you know there's now a brief article detailing the AI which you can link to in these sections, here. I've already updated the articles where it's already mentioned, so this notice is more for future additions. Best regards, Steve  T • C 11:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. --User: (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post a note about this discussion, which I've just found. In particular The Ribos Operation is being used as a case study of sorts and some discussion as moved towards whether Doctor Who's serialized nature (at least up until 1989) renders it as an exception to the "rule" the deletionists are trying to create. 23skidoo (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of non-free images in multi-subject articles
Proposed new guidance is under discussion at WP:NFC on the appropriate use of images in "articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic" -- e.g. List of Doctor Who items.

Input from projects, like this one, which actually include such articles would be appropriate now.

Please also pass on this heads-up to other projects that it may be relevant to. Jheald (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Minor Harry Potter characters, and its talk page, shows the kind of activity that has recently been taking place on articles of this type. I have to say, I'm not convinced that a big collage picture, as at Companion (Doctor Who), is the right way to go -- it makes it very hard to identify who's who.  Jheald (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have to disagree on it being difficult to identify who's who on the companion collage - the image box contains a caption naming everyone depicted in order by row. Additionally, they are displayed in order of when they joined the Doctor as a companion. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up Doctor Who story chronology
I have been working on tidying this page up, and I noted on on the talk page, but no-one has replied. I plan to make the change today, so if anyone has any suggestions let me know. Stuart DD  contributions 13:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Four more images for deletion
Four images have gone up for deletion Image:Ambass.jpg, Image:Thedaemons.jpg, Image:Dayofthedaleks.jpg and Image:The Enemy of the World.jpg. See entries on Images and media for deletion/2008 January 19. Stuart DD  contributions 16:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

more
Yet more images for deletion. Image:The Awakening.jpg, Image:Warriors of the Deep.jpg Image:The Awakening.jpgImage:Adeola Oshodi.JPG , Image:Facelessones.jpg , Image:DW20052x11ArmyOfGhosts-01130.jpg  and Image:Nanogenes.jpg   Stuart  DD  contributions 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Torchwoodhouse.jpg is also up for deletion - see here. Stuart  DD  contributions 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Entries on villains templates
Should we get rid of the stock-footage flashbacks on the villains templates? After all, the titles are "television stories" not "all appearances". Stuart DD  contributions 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_January_24
This is bit of an odd Torchwood image problem, community input would be welcome Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Torchwood (series 1)
Have a look... This completely slipped under the radar, until the author replaced the entire Series 1 section from List of Torchwood episodes. Looks snazzy, but is it necessary? — Edokter  •  Talk  • 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's redundant with the existing article and the individual episode articles. Should he maybe be invited to improve List of Torchwood episodes instead? --Brian Olsen (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like it. The format has worked well for shows like Smallville, Lost, and The Simpsons, all three shows of which are similar to DW LoEs - no summaries in the main one. I was actually going to do the same regarding series two of Doctor Who (as part of my drive to get series 2 to a featured topic). Will (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't really need both this and the main episodes page, so I'd say delete the series 1 page. Stuart  DD  contributions 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Or incorporate this style into the main list - I don't think we need separate articles for each of Torchwood's seasons just yet. --Brian Olsen (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I say nominate the Series 1 article for deletion. We already tried the new table layout, and it didn't work very well witout the summaries. The DVD image also likely fails NFCC. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now at Articles for deletion/Torchwood (series 1)‎. It already accumulated some Keep comments. However, if the article is kept, I'm afraid it will throw the current article structure into chaos. Please contribute to the discussion. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This AFD may be closed soon, however, Arbcom has called a moratorium on AFDs related to episode articles until an official policy regarding whether individual episode articles are allowed or not is finalized. I fear, though, that all the hard work that's gone into making the indiviudal articles on Doctor Who, Torchwood and SJA episodes could be for naught if they're all deleted and merged into uninformative articles like this Torchwood Season 1 thing. 23skidoo (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(another) Image for deletion
Image:Sonicscrewdriver.jpg is up for deletion, see. Stuart DD  contributions 17:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Doomsday (Doctor Who) now an FA
The title is self-explanatory. This is the first episode FA for the project, but hopefully by no means the last; I'm currently working to get Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) upto the same level. Will (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Great work. --Brian Olsen (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. A great effort went into that page.  Stuart  DD  contributions 15:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The new format for the cast list seems somewhat arbitrary in who is and who is not included. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone make sure to keep note of this should Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability go against the idea of having such articles. I've already added a reference to this to my comment. In my opinion community support for individual episode articles is proven by the nomination of articles such as these to FA status. 23skidoo (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Monster mash
,, &rarr;

Same universe, so infinite possibility of overlap between the three; in fact, it's already happened with the Slitheen and "Mary", and as a result the lists look a bit fractured. Will (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The lists are big enough as they are, so joining them for the sake of two aliens that appear in two series is I think a bit too early; there's not enough overlap to join these list just yet. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 01:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In both of the latter articles, there's less than a dozen each - to be honest, it's the Mary sections that annoy me, because there's no need for fracturing. Will (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe link to the entry for whichever series got them first? --Brian Olsen (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about something like this, but I think the doctor who page is too long already without having Torchwood and Sarah Jane as well. Stuart  DD  contributions 20:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging these would make one very long article. With Doctor Who still being made, and new series of Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures on the way, each individual article is set to get longer. So, I'd be against merging them. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and I agree with Brian above about linking to avoid duplicate entries. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should merge them, the artice would then be way too long, especially since their are gonna be new Doctor Who aliens, no doubt, and Torchwood Aliens and probably still SJA Aliens, so just leave 'em as they are. Kadajvince (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with merging them since they're mostly mainarticle-redirects already.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merging would make sense. As long as each section specifies which show they appear in, and should probably mention the audience. For example, "Mary first appeared in Torchwood, the adult-aimed Doctor Who spin-off series in its 2006 series episode "Greek Bearing Gifts", the species of aliens she is from would later reappear in the 2007 premiere of The Sarah Jane Adventures, the child-oriented Doctor Who spin-off series." ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That actually sounds like a good idea. I'm still worried about the size, but I think it might work.   Stuart  DD  contributions 08:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done a test on this in my sandbox. The page is 116 kb, but I think we could trim that down a bit as some enrties are a bit big. This is also probably due to the high number of "main page" links. Have a look and see what you think. Stuart DD  contributions 17:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still think that merging creates a list that is very long and growing... In reply to Porcupine, some of the redirects are there until someone fills out a proper entry, thus making the individual lists, (or a collective list), longer still. I think three individual lists is fine - we just need to improve them so they are not written in-universe and so that sources are cited. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Until the Doctor Who monsters and aliens page has been properly formatted and completed, I am not letting the Torchwood list (which admittedly is a lot easier to keep up to date with only two years of history) anywhere near it! And as Wolf of Fenric said above, with the DW list's completion will only come an even larger file size. I am completely against the idea. It is fine how it is. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no activity in this motion. Can we remove the merge tags?~ZytheTalk to me! 23:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support that idea --BrucePodger (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support merging. Fouf (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is an idea, merge the aliens into one cohesive list structure; then divide, as needed, by alphabet.

Start with the examples below or something similar...
 * List of Doctor Who franchise aliens: A-M
 * List of Doctor Who franchise aliens: N-Z
 * List of Doctor Who franchise humans (Cassandra from Doctor Who "The End of the World," The Controller from Doctor Who "Bad Wolf," and the cannibals from Torchwood "Countrycide" for example.)

Each alien would get a little infobox, like the one beside this entry. Give me a little time, and I can have an alien infobox that dances. Just tell me what you want in it, and I will get it up and running so it takes very little time to set up each alien in the Doctor Who franchise. - LA @ 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, good idea, could we have, instead of 'humans' as a group, 'Terestrial Beings'? This could include non human earth beings.  Rockreader (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That format strikes me as very in-universe, though. It's very... Wikia.~ZytheTalk to me! 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zythe, I loathe the idea of the dispersal of information to anywhere else. I only edit Wikipedia (or sister projects). The proposal to move this information to another wiki unrelated to Wikipedia is repugnant. The information needs to be kept together and not treated as an unwanted step-child. - LA @ 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely disagree with that idea. Clockwork Apricot (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why? - LA @ 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support merging since there are now monsters that cross over from one programme to another, as for the wikia comment above, I don't think Zythe was suggesting to move it to wikia, I think he was just making a comment on the fact that it very fan based.--Wiggs (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The three shows are very much different entities. I don't want children searching for the Sensorites and seeing Sex Gas right next to it. And besides, until the Doctor Who section is actually fit to be called a list, I don't think the two need to merge. As it stands, the community is doing a very good job of keeping the Torchwood list up-to-date and correct. The Doctor Who list is completely un-moderated and almost entirely devoid of information. If people can't keep the page under control as it is, how are they going to handle the addition of 30 or so new entries? Clockwork Apricot (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

'Oppose: The programmes are seperate in their own right and would create an unnecessarily long page. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Placement of cast lists in episode articles
Given the promotion of Doomsday to Featured Article, should we revisit the discussion about placement of cast lists? I believe previous consesnus was to keep it as a separate section within the body of the article, but if Feature Article standards call for it to be in the infobox, I think we should follow that. Should we rewrite the style guide? And do we list the entire cast in the infobox, or only significant characters? --Brian Olsen (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd put everything except the prop operators - although that does include Paul Kasey/Jimmy Vee's costumes, and Nick Brigg's voicework. Will (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of anything that keeps a list of all credited cast for a serial/an episode. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And for including more than currently appears on the "Doomsday" article. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I recomend merging to create a more comprehensive list and when there is a crossover from show to show it can be logged.--Wiggs (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Doctor Who
This is a request for collaboration for improvement of the Doctor Who portal. Until this evening, the portal was mostly outdated. I'm working towards updating it, but help would be appreciated, especially on the "selected story" parts. Thanks, Will (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I played around with it a bit. Took a while to get the hang of Random portal component (the doc for that is a little confusing). I added just one Selected story ("Doomsday"); I changed "Quality article" to "Selected article" (hope you don't mind, that seems to be what other portals are using), and added the six featured articles to it. I wasn't sure how we should format those, so I just copied the ledes from them and removed the references. Is that right - do we include the references on the portal page? I'll try and keep on eye on them, and add more episodes and the Good Articles when I get a chance (if nobody else beats me to it). Props for attending to our long-neglected portal! --Brian Olsen (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I made "Quality article" and set the random number for "selected story" up to 220 was so that section could have more than the two episode pages we have at GA/FA right now. Will (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the number to reflect the current number of articles that were available; I didn't mean to suggest that we should stop there. The number should be updated whenever more articles are added, otherwise the random feature will give us a redlink on the main Portal page. But why "Quality" over "Selected"? I've no real objection to it, I just looked at some Featured Portals and used the term that they used, and I thought we should use the same word for all the boxes. --Brian Olsen (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically because "Quality articles" covers both FAs and GAs. Will (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - I had never heard "Quality article" as an actual Wikipedia term. Looks good! --Brian Olsen (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you, or anyone, wants to help with the "selected story" part, you're welcome to. I'd rather do them in order just because it makes it easier to see which ones we haven't done. Will (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films now a Featured List
Congrats (again) to Will, and everyone who worked on the article, for making List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films a Featured List! --Brian Olsen (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't take credit for the writing though; I just fixed some sentences and citations, then nominated it. Will (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay! Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT has been revised
WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)
There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)