Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 22

Fact-check request for Robert Holmes
Any chance of an editor with the correct sources to hand checking some of the unreferenced statements at Robert Holmes? Thanks if so. --Cedderstk 09:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate templates
Just noticed two duplicate templates: Template:Doctor Who Auton Stories and Template:Auton Stories - Would tag one for deletion myself but wasn't sure which one the respective pages link to. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good spot. I redirected the latter to the former, it might be a useful redirect to have. Regards  So Why  12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TARDIS' FAR
nominated TARDIS for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Digging up solid ground - infoboxes in An Unearthly Child and The Edge of Destruction
At current, the infoboxes of these two articles both display two titles; the article names and one alternative title. This is insane, but unfortunatley at least one editor does not agree. This was put forward as a measure to prevent further arguments over three and a half years ago, where it was neither objected against or supported by anyone. Clearly this is hugely out of date. The "Beginnings" DVD uses the article name titles, as do pretty much everywhere at the present day as far as I'm aware. And even if they didn't, I'd be against this measure anyway. The infobox should have one title, and that title should be the article's name. It's as simple as that. U-Mos (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Check Doctor Who Magazine for a start - they still use 100,000 BC and Inside the Spaceship. The arrangement of listing both at the top of the infobox is taken from other articles where there is a naming dispute and was agreed on (there is support clear in the discussion at the time and no real objection raised then or until now) after the DVD set came out so I don't see anything that's really changed since then beyond one individual user deciding to alter things. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't vouch for An Unearthly Child, but The Edge of Destruction has happily had only one title in its infobox for a long time until you changed it in Spetember. There was no support at the time; the infobox suggestion was not commented on by anybody. The titles have been discussed and chosen for the article, so why should an alternative title be given equal footing in the infobox and nowhere else? Whatever these "other articles" are, this is a case of WP:OSE. And even if it were the case that there was a proper agreement for this specific part of the matter, I would contest that now anyway. There's the DVD, there's the BBC's classic episode guide; both more official (as it were) than DWM. This really is a no-brainer. U-Mos (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've waited before replying as for some reason online discussions on this subject matter tend to get out of all proportion. I don't think your using inflamatory language like "insane" and "no brainer" is particularly helpful or constructive here.
 * Reinterpreting what was discussed three and a half years ago strikes me as redundant. Certainly at the time that is what was agreed - and it wasn't just "to prevent further arguments", it was part of seeking a general broad consensus including where the article was located. (And it follows precedent of other articles handling multiple titles. Precedent for consistency of practice on the encyclopedia is good reasoning, just saying "WP:OSE" is not.) The situation on the first story article has been thus for over three years now with no objection raised at all. If you want to seek a change in consensus then sure go ahead, but trying to change things on a reinterpretation of long past discussions you weren't contributing to at the time
 * Contrary to your statement, the third story did list both titles when moved - see the relevant edit. It was only in early 2008 that one of the titles was removed without discussion or a reason given. (The same user made the same edit on the first story but that was reverted.) I can't recall why this one was overlooked though as it was not flagged it may have been missed.
 * There is no hierarchy of "officialness" between DWM, 2Entertain and the BBC website - see this link for the position on that one - which is one of the reasons why this one has never really settled. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Our guidelines regarding (article) titles dictate we use the most common names, and outline any alternatives in the article text (not the infobox). — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which guideline are you referring to? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That page says nothing about infoboxes. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes follow the same naming conventions. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 18:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * a) Is there any need to have alternate titles in the boxes?, b) why is it that fans only seem to argue about the first three - why not have all the alternate titles for the other ones too. It's just being difficult not to accept the official BBC websites titles that are now also on the official DVD releases just because of some ancient working title that got ditched over 30 years ago. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. U-Mos (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a need to have multiple titles in the infobox. The alternate titles can be adequately presented in the lead.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are exceptions somewhere, but it seems highly unusual to have multiple titles in the infobox - even for articles where there are multiple widely used or controversial names - e.g., Cougar.  And I don't see any great need to make an exception for this circumstance. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's an article on this. I've not read it, but it is there. –Whitehorse1 15:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

David Tennant last appearance
Listening to David Tennant he notes that his last bit of filming work on Doctor Who wasn't for the show itself but for the SJA. I'd add it to a couple of relevant articles but how do we cite Radio? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cite audio seems appropriate. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 12:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Move request
Hi, just informing Wikipedians involved with this project that I have placed a move request on Creatures and aliens in Doctor Who, to have it moved to "List of fictional creatures and aliens in Doctor Who". If any editors want to leave comments, the request can be found here. Thanks, 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Commercial releases for new series episodes
Is it possible to have on each new series episode article commercial release section like with the classic series story episodes? Just deatails about DVD releases cause it seems only fair. --VitasV (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links
The BBC are officially broadcasting (if that's the correct term) some Who stories on Youtube here. Is it worth linking to in the stories' articles themselves, perhaps as an external link, or as part of the broadcast sections? Alastairward (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great find! And no copyright infringement to boot. These should be linked in the External links section (as it's not so much a broadcast, but more of a video) of the episodes. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 01:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the appropriate YouTube links to the external links of the articles concerned. If anyone fancies changing the wording, I don't mind. Alastairward (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that all the classic series clips are Robert Holmes stories. Are his stories the only ones they could get the clearance for? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The next Doctor is in the specials - not series 4
Thought I'd do a one size fits all post on this page rather than try arguing on different pages. I refer to my recent changes of Doctor Who (series 4). Template:Doctor Who (series 4) and Template:Doctor Who (2009 specials) which I changed to reflect that fact that that The Next Doctor is not part of series 4. One revert (here) asked for a source - the source as stated in the edits themselves is the DVD releases - Doctor Who magazne 415 announced that The Next Doctor is being released along with the complete specials DVD coupled with the fact that it is not on the series 4 DVD. The others were slightly siller - claiming that we follow production cycles. Do you really? Production block does not imply seasons. The episode has a 4 as the production code - so what? In the early years of Doctor Who productgion was all over the place. Planet of Giants and Dalek invasion of Earth (season 2) were recorded as part of the first block with season 1 but held over to start the new season. This type of thing was also done with Galaxy 4 (season ) The Smugglers (season 4) Tomb of the Cybermen (season 5) and The Dominators (season 6) - anyone want to claim that those should be part of the preceding season where they were recorded? No - good. So you see that production block does not equal season. The Next Doctor is in the DVD for the specials, not series 4 - so should be counted with the specials here and not series 4. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So the next doctor is on the complete specials dvd as the bbc shop points out in its advertisement however I don't think thats anything to go by. But it also has a series 4 production code and in Davies' book "The Writers Tale" he describes it as the Fourteenth episode of Series Four. So there's kind of evidence both ways. However I'm not going to take a side as I'm new and don't know how things roll around here yet Therealluke (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we should categorize "The Next Doctor" as a 2009 special, but for a slightly different reason. You are correct that it is in the Specials DVD, and I think the makeup of the DVD reflects the producers' intent: that "The Next Doctor" was part of the handover specials. The reason it was produced as part of season 4, I think, was to have a finished product ready for Christmas 2009, before Tennant went to do Hamlet (the remaining specials all have 4.n codes as well). It's a matter of pragmatism, really: the Doctor Who production process, especially Russell T Davies, is infamous for running very late, to the point that several episodes were being "run up Oxford Street" literally hours before the BBC required them to be deposited ("Planet of the Dead" wasn't completed until 48 hours before transmission, for example). However, I must disagree with your argument about the classic series: the new series has a more rigid production process and continuity, runs for 14 weeks on BBC rather than the 42 of the first few series, and is about half as long per season as the first few series. It's comparing apples and oranges. Sceptre (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Join the Project
May I join, I added my name to the member list if thats ok Therealluke (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, welcome aboard. Since you are a new editor, please make sure you read our introduction to Wikipedia and the project's guidelines to make sure your edits are not undid. Regards  So Why  13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Separate articles for "The End of Time" episodes?
Please see my request for comments at Talk:The End of Time (Doctor Who). Regards  So Why  13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying hello and some questions
Hi everyone I have just joined the project.

I've just found a new article that someone has created about Adelaide Brooke from the latest Dr Who episode. What sort of importance should be put on it?

Also on the Tenth Doctor page it lists Wilfred Mott as a Companion?

Thanks for listening. Tsange ► talk 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilf is listed as a companion because he's been announced as the Companion of The End of Time 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

CFD
and Category:Doctor Who serials set outside England Tim! (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Adventures villains
The villains section of Sarah Jane Adventures is hopelessly out of date as it does not feature villains such as Erasmus Darkening or the Blathereen.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * sofixit —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Link to next episode/series
Input wanted on Talk:The End of Time, wether the paramter in the infobox used to link to the next episode should link to List of Doctor Who serials instead. — Edokter • Talk  • 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging new series non-finale two-parters
With the merge of River Song into Silence in the Library, I'm wondering if it make sense to consider merging two-part episodes from the new series which basically are simply extended stories clearly from the narrative. This would only be the case of mid-series shows and likely would not apply to the finale episodes (eg Stolen Earth/Journey's End) which generally have a lot more hype and reception around them, or in the case of "Sound of Drums"/"Last of the Time Lords" where there is a decidedly different narrative between the two parts.

This would do several things:
 * Plot would be simpler - no need to "pause" for the conclusion or reintroduce concepts
 * In these cases, production information would likely be the same for both episodes (same settings/actors/writers/etc.) and would not duplicate it between the two articles.
 * Reception would likely have to cover both articles, but as I've seen, the mid-season shows don't seem to draw the same attention as premiere and finale episodes (eg if they all could be written as deep as Journey's End was, then no, I'd be against this, but that doesn't seem to be the case).

These would strictly apply to the episodes that have a common number (eg "Long Game" and "Bad Wolf" are not, together, a two-part episode despite the common setting), and again, not including the finale episodes. --M ASEM (t) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that these two-parters have different titles; that is the reasom they are seperate. And most of these do have different production- and cast information. I would have to oppose merging. — Edokter • Talk  • 14:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose First of all, there is no reason to treat mid-season two-parters any different than end-of-season multi-part episodes. Either all of them or none of them. Then, all those episodes received coverage individually, have had different reviews and as Edokter points out, mostly the cast is not the same. It would be chaotic to try and merge two articles with different names (how to name the article?), different content and different coverage and still have them structured enough to actually emphasize that they are different episodes. They were broadcasted and produced as individual episodes who happen to share a story but there is no reason to treat them differently just because of that. Reliable sources don't, so neither should we. Regards  So Why  15:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose – way too much hassle, way too much controversy, and completely un-necessary (as SoWhy says, why should they be treated differently to finale episodes?)... ╟─TreasuryTag► Woolsack ─╢ 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Torchwood
So, anyone know anything about the return of Torchwood? If so, please, please, please message me on my talk page and let me know.  Cra sh  Underride  02:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Trust me, as soon as someone knows, it will be added to the article. For now we only know that it is scheduled to return and that shooting is planned for early 2010 but nothing more is known. Regards  So Why  11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't even know that. I'm a happy boy!!!  Cra sh  Underride  23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Amy Pond

 * Amy Pond has been nominated for deletion. Since this article has been rated as high importance by the Project, I think this information is of interest. Hektor (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Input requested
There's a ridiculous "dispute" over at Talk:Amy_Pond – anyone's opinions welcome! ╟─TreasuryTag► constablewick ─╢ 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Amy Pond
Please see: Talk:Amy_Pond. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Series 5 filming
Enjoy! Cirt (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Sceptre (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Series 5? How is it series 5? There's been 30 series of Doctor Who? Or is it now called series 5 of Doctor Who (2000s series)? Meanwhile, Doctor Who magazine seem to be calling it series 1 and now lumping the previous 4 as 27-30. What's going on?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, that will be a bit confusing. From what I gather, the BBC calls it series 1 again, while most others call it series 5 of the new series and the old school fans never accepted the new numbering anyway. That will probably lead to some edit wars in the future once series 5 airs. Regards  So Why  23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Old school or not, this is either series (season) 31 or not. If not, then Doctor Who needs to have separate main articles ala Star Trek: The Next Generation. Or will we just settle for calling three different seasons the first?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Image use in infobox
Please see Talk:Eleventh_Doctor. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Doctor Who contemporary serials
doctor who contemporary serials has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Fred the happy man (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD of Chronology of the Doctor Who universe
Just so people are aware, Chronology of the Doctor Who universe has been nominated for deletion - the AFD discussion can be found here. Cheers, TalkIslander 22:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Template up for deletion
I have nominated for deletion here. ╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Review for Dalek
nominated Dalek for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've started work on the missing citations. One area that I could use some help on is the "Merchandising" section; if any project member has a copy of "Howe's Transcendental Toybox" (especially the latest edition), I bet that would be very helpful in providing citations for the various Dalek toys and so forth.  Does anyone have access to that? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody here has a copy of Howe's Transcendental Toybox? In the absence of that (which I assume would list the Dalek toys and computer games) does anyone have any suggestions for how to find citations for the few remaining sentences tagged with citation needed? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Episode Article plot lengths
Can someone explain to me how they adhere to WP:Plot? It looks to me as if few if any episode articles even remotely take note of How_to_write_a_plot_summary and since there are perfectly good sites out there that go into hugely detailed plot descriptions, we could perhaps stick more closely to the guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrigan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, most episodes plot sections do tend to get overly long. Not all of them though; some are featured articles. like "Doomsday", "Partners in Crime" and "The Stolen Earth". — Edokter • Talk  • 23:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Etrigan, I raised the point before and would agree. We don't need a breakdown of plot episode by episode. Alastairward (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that most of you are probably aware of this - but for those that aren't - please note that most (if not all) of the plot summaries for the Classic series were written long before the current WP:Plot existed. Things were much looser years ago and the "Out of Universe" perspective was not a part of the MoS. It is kind of a shame to lose them because a lot of work went into them at the time, especially by khaosworks, (fortunately they will always be in the edit history for anyone who wants to dig them out.) I also understand the desire to move away from the fan boy and girl nature of them. Anyone is free and invited to work on altering them to conform to the current rules. Complaining about them without working on them is a bit counterproductive and I hope it helps a bit to know how WikiP has evolved over the years. I would like to add that in at least one DVD commentary (sorry but I can't remember which one) our Doctor Who pages - in their old form - received praise from those who worked on the show. I am not saying that the new form doesn't receive praise also its just that not everything about the old form is bad. Thanks to all the project members who continue to work so diligently on the Doctor Who pages and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I brought this up about a year or so ago and commented on the City of Death plot section which was ridiculous. I worked on it and brought it down to 800 words (which I still felt was too long - but a good drop from 2,000 words). Since then, bits have been added in here and there (as well as someone breaking it up into episodes) and has crept back up to well over 1,000. The plot summary guideline now says 100-200 words generally, which I'd agree with and looked with interest at the Confirmed Dead plot length - which is a featured article. This is what we should be aiming for - telling the main points of the plot, but not going into detail. Unfortunately, I don't see it as a worthwhile effort as, as soon as you cut plots down, several overzealous fans jump in with their favourite bits.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to develop an ego I don't want; out of the four exemplar plot summaries offered, I wrote all of them. Oh dear. :/ Sceptre (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Keeping within the recommended guideline, here is an example. But is this too drastic, or nicely succinct (at 197 words)? Compare: the actual page and page that complies with recommendations. Comments? (although I think I know what they'll probably be!)--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Complaining about them without working on them is a bit counterproductive". Marnette, raising the issue (which is quite different from complaining) and receiving a prickly response from Whovians on the Wikiproject put me off trying to cut down the plots to size.
 * Tuzapicabit, the cut down plot (which has been moved elsewhere in your userspace) doesn't look bad. The current page is certainly excessive. The problem seems to be the episodic nature of the series. Fan as I am, when it comes to being descriptive as opposed to mentioning every detail, I can see some fluff from the script that we can cut out for most stories. Alastairward (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Marnette, out of curiosity, which DVD commentary mentions our Wikipedia articles? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend reviewing WP:TVMOS which aims for between 200 and 500 words per "episode". Now, in the context of Who, this should apply more towards the new series (where each story, save two-parters, are single episodes); the old serial versions, this should not be taken to mean that a 4 parter gets upwards of 2000 words, but a 1000-word summary for one isn't a long stretch.  But there are always ways to trim.  Particularly in the old serials, scene-by-scene events are unnecessary, but as alot of them ramble between major plot points (Logopolis proves fairly tricky here as there's no main, easy-to-distill story) and thus it's very handle to get them as succinct as the "Image of Fendahl" given above. With a stronger overall plot (The Caves of Androzani) especially when the Doctor is thrusted into a situation that already exists, smart reordering can help to cut down the plot. And then you get a story like Blink (Doctor Who), which has enough time travel concepts to make it necessary to explain things more.
 * The way I've tried to cut down plots for DW episodes when I do them is aim for a 3-act structure, one para per act, or if an older serial, a para (if less) per act. I know when I think it is at least an upper bound with potential for further improvements. Now, I know Spectre's when he's taken articles to FA is usually able to trim brilliantly down more, but I don't believe that it is imperative that all DW articles (regardless of their article quality) need to be presently as verbose.  But definitely we need to avoid these 2000+ word plots that exist on some pages in the short term.  But as stated, be bold, make the changes yourself. --M ASEM  (t) 13:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, admittedly I chose a fairly straightforward story to use as an example and so other stories would require longer plot summaries than I've given there. The reason why I came into the discussion is mainly down to the fact that I see the story articles looking more like fan pages. If you consider, this is an encyclopedia which deals in facts - the main facts being that it is a Doctor Who story, it was transmitted in 1977 on BBC1, it starred Tom Baker etc. Further down its release as a DVD and novelisation are important and then maybe talking about any notable points within the production. I think the plot of the thing comes quite far down in priorities, given that it's a fact-based article, yet the majority of articles seem to be engulfed by it. I actually quite like what the editor did with City of Death with the extra cast information/critical reception etc and think it's more readable and interesting to a random browser. There's a lot on info out there with plenty of decent sources for every Doctor Who story, but it seems that only the current series gets articles which are packed with information. Yes, perhaps it's time to be bold. Regards.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. -- The left orium  14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not seeing double. :) Sadly, this is another one, evidently discovered during cleanup of the last...which had one of the swiftest closures I've ever seen for a CCI! Kudos especially to User:Edgepedia and User:Theleftorium for their hard work! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this questionable...
Looks like some one has cobbled together Doctor Who (2010 series) as a list article.

I'm a little concerned since:
 * 1) It incorporates material that would normally go into List of Doctor Who serials - here actually
 * 2) It incorporates material that should be in Doctor Who
 * 3) There is no like article for the other 30 series/seasons
 * 4) The video clip
 * 5) It feels like an excuse to use the new logo

- J Greb (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This was created in the style of the articles we do have on the recent series such as Doctor Who (series 1) to Doctor Who (series 4). I didn't create it, but when I saw what had happened I changed the name so we were not calling it series 5 and moved the text around so that it looked like Doctor Who (series 4). What material do you think should be in Doctor Who or List of Doctor Who serials? The latter is a list, and long...
 * What's the problem with using the video clip if the licence is ok?
 * I felt the new logo was the best image for the infobox. Edgepedia (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Coburn
Would anyone be able to help add sources to this article? It is currently unsourced and Coburn's son has been adding his own original research (which I've reverted), so I thought I'd ask here to see if anyone who knows the subject better than I do, and knows Wikipedia better than he does, to help. anemoneprojectors  talk  23:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added one reference, although it could do with more... Alzarian16 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Apparently, according to User:Stef Stargazer (the son in question), there are factual errors on the page, but his edits are highly unconstructive. anemoneprojectors   talk  13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This has escalated to an OTRS ticket, and the son is very upset. I have listed on the talk page one reliable source he gave me, and hopefully someone has the book in question so we can refer to it. Is there anyone here who is willing to play nice and work directly with him to improve the article? He's very passionate about things, but I think he really does want the article to be improved. He just needs a steady hand to help guide him in the right way. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Miranda comic series
Can we please have an article created about the Miranda spin-off comic series which featured the Eight Doctor's companion/adopted daughter Miranda? --VitasV (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Karen Gillan
New series goes live tonight, (5 hours) and lots of traffic will hit this article, yet it remains an unreferenced BLP. What's this wikiproject doing?--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Different question: What are you doing? Instead of slapping a tag on it and telling us here, you could simply have added some references yourself (per WP:SOFIXIT). There are many to chose from. Regards  So Why  21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in Dr Who articles, or in adding to BLPs. But, I assumed that those self-identifying as members of a wikiproject might be. Maybe I misunderstood.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to assume that they are not - but there is reason to assume that they will not monitor this page 24/7 for someone to write "shame on you". I was under the impression that if an experienced editor like yourself notifies a problem they can easily fix, they will do so instead of telling others to do it. Maybe we both misunderstood something... Regards  So Why  21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't say much for a wikiproject that the BLP of the second actor in the series it purports to be focussed on remained unreferenced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we are all volunteers here, as you sure know, so we cannot do everything needed all the time. And of course this is not a Wikiproject's responsibility but one of the whole community, so I'm sure everyone here would have appreciated your help with this matter. After all, Wikipedia is not based on "I don't care about that topic so I will not fix errors I notice"-thinking, at least not for most editors :-) Regards  So Why  21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are all volunteers, quite. That's why I posted on the noticeboard of the people who seem to want to volunteer for doctor who stuff. I didn't suggest it was any particular editor's responsibility, indeed I didn't ask any particular editor to volunteer for anything - so I don't understand why you are complaining that I chose not to volunteer to work on this. Actually, as a point a principle I don't ever volunteer to add BLP material to wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason for negative reaction was the "shame on you" part of the heading. Not very much in the spirit of WP:AGF, really. As for what you choose to do with your time, it's well known that you were one of those leading the charge to wipe out all unreferenced BLPs on the site rather than trying to fix them, so your motives on the topic are generally already known. If you aren't going to be part of the solution to the problem by fixing the articles, don't harass others who don't jump at your command. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? I commanded no-one. I certainly assumed no-one's bad faith. What are my motives? What are you assuming? Sorry, not understanding this. I flagged up a referencing need to the relevant wikiproject - and expressed a little surprise that this hadn't hit their radar. This is a fuss over nothing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the header ("shame on you") and the tone of your initial comment ("What's this wikiproject doing?") wasn't very helpful, especially when taken together. Perhaps rewording your comments in the future to be less "Hello? I can't believe you haven't done anything about this!" and more "Just wanted to make sure you were aware of this, thanks for all your hard work", you might get a more positive reaction. The whole honey or vinegar thing is applicable here. :) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Jack have "the ability to heal others through kissing"?
His wiki article says he has "the ability to heal others through kissing," and references the episodes "Day One" and "Cyberwoman." Does anyone know anything about this? --DrBat (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have to skim the second ref, but as far as "Day One" goes that's viewer interpretation. The same scene can be taken as Jack placated the alien possessing the woman, not "healing" her. - J Greb (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rory Williams
I was assessing the article Rory Williams, when I encountered a problem: the importance scale requires me to decide if he is a companion, a recurring character, or just a guest star. I have identified him as a recurring character at the moment, due to his appearance in both "The Eleventh Hour" and "Vampires in Venice". I would be grateful for any clarification of his status. Thanks - we  eb  il  oo  bi  l  ( talk ) 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I'd consider him a recurring character. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Season or series
Doctor Who articles in WP seem to be propagating the myth that some of the earlier series of the programme were officially known as seasons. There is conflicting evidence on this but it is important that WP does not propagate information that has not been properly verified. This web site says, ''The twenty-six separate runs of Doctor Who were never referred to as "seasons" by anybody until Jean-Marc Lofficier misused the term in his Programme Guide in 1981. Rather than being corrected in later editions to the more correct "series", it was adopted by the "super-fans" and eventually spread throughout TV as the Yuppie generation gradually took control of the airwaves. The term "season", in British TV at least, was used to describe the entire output of a particular channel over a certain part of the year. "Seasons" generally ran from the New Year to Easter, from Easter to mid-summer, from mid-summer to autumn, and from autumn to Christmas. Individual shows, including Doctor Who, were always referred to as serials or series, and each new run of Doctor Who was announced on air as being "a new series", never "a new season". Technically speaking, Doctor Who was a series of serials.'' Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental problem with this argument, and that is the site itself. It is a single page apparently put together by a Doctor Who fan to collect what (s)he perceives as mythology about the program, and then to debunk it.  It lacks any supporting evidence, and fails to meet the most minimal levels of scholarship in that sense.  Consequently, it can in no way be viewed as a reliable source for the purpose of supporting this argument, or for determining the use of series v. season in the UK in any context.   It is also troubling that much of the opposition to the use of season is based on hostility to the UK using a US programming term, and that none of the discussants have accurate working knowledge of how the use of "season" is operationalized in/by the US media.  Drmargi (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Drmargi, I make no claim that the above site is a reliable source, it merely creates doubt about the claim that the BBC intentionally used the term 'season' to refer to certain Dr Who series. The ooint is that there is already clear agreement to use UK English throughout ther Dr Who article and the normal UK term is agreed to be series, thus there need to be confirmation from a reliable source that the BBC did indeed choose to use the term 'season'.
 * This has nothing to do with alleged hostility to American terms it has to do with verifyin a claim that the BBC chose to use a non-standard UK term for some reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To cast doubt, a site must have some measure of credibility, and in Wikipedia terms, that generally means it's a reliable source. I could point you to a site I found that says the moon is made of bran flakes and challenge the content of the article on the moon, but where's the reliability, and thereby the credibility of such an assertion?  The page you cite is one person's speculation and is far, far too tenuous a source to be one on which to hang an argument.  Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that an assertion is being made that the BBC decided to refer to some series of DrWho as seasons. On the face of it, this would seem unlikely as this is not the term that the BBC normally use.  There is therefore an onus on anyone who makes this assertion to show, using reliable sources, that the BBC did, in fact, make a decision to use an unexpected term.  Any source which shows this fact is likely to give the reason that the BBC made this unlikely decision.  So far no such source has been cited. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To note, Martin started a discussion on this at Talk:Doctor Who about a week ago. It was brought here to gain more or and new contributors to the discussion. Thanks in great measure to myself the discussion i am linking here is rather lengthy. For the time being anyway i think i have said enough. delirious &amp; lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * delirious &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost, thanks for the note and the link to the discussion.


 * My point is not about British/American English differences or even style in general but the integrity of Wikipedia. As expected for an article about a show that originated in the UK, and in accordance with WP policy, there is general agreement to use British English throughout Dr Who articles.


 * It is asserted by some that there is a special reason to use the normal US term of 'season' for some sets of episodes of Dr Who instead of the usual UK term 'series'. The reason given is that the BBC used this term.  If it is indeed true that for some reason the BBC made a decision to use the term 'season' in reference to Dr Who then this fact is worthy of note in the article itself and justifies the use of 'season' appropriately in the article, however in order to do this we need a reliable source which shows that the BBC have clearly and intentionally used the term 'season' is specific relation to Dr Who.  It is not sufficient that there are many web sites, including one or two by the BBC that use the word 'season', especially in the light of the claim above that 'Jean-Marc Lofficier misused the term in his Programme Guide in 1981'.


 * Many people rely on Wikipedia for accurate information and it is essential that WP is not allowed to propagate myths and misconceptions, no matter how appealing or convenient. WP has a strict policy of verifiability that should be applied to all things, even minor details of Dr Who. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In all the Wikipedia debates on this I've yet to see anyone provide a definite assertion that "season" is inaccurate in British English. It has been heavily used for many years, not least because of the huge Who output - at what point does a word become incorporated? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are claiming that the English language has changed because of Dr Who. 'Series' is the standard UK term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Language is what people use. People in the UK do use "season". What is your authority for saying they don't? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is well accepted that 'series' is the standard British English term, even the Dr Who MoS agrees this, this is not what the argument is all about, it is claimed that for some reason the BBC dep0areted from standard terminology for somne of tyhe early series, calling them seasons. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, please do not remove my signature from a post; copying is ok but make sure you don't cut it.
 * It IS well accepted that "series" is the standard British term. It is ALSO well accepted that "season" is the term to be used for the original run of the programme. You may be of the minority descenting opinion but your argument cuts both ways. In light of the comments from Drmargi i wrote my own little response to a few of the myths being debunked. Also of note, you forgot to include the L in ".html" in the link in your original post. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious  &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I inadvertently did a cut and paste instead of a copy and paste. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The term 'season' is occasionally heard in the UK and it is obviously perfectly well understood here but it is not the term normally used. The BBC for example, do not normally use it.  This is why some kind of explanation is required when it is claimed that the BBC did intentionally use this term to refer to some Dr Who series; it is not what they normally do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin it is grossly bad form to insert your response in the middle of someone else's post. as you created the appearance of an unsigned post. As such i have moved that part of your response to below my preceding comment, where the rest of your response is.
 * I too would love to find a definitive date at which the BBC switched to using "season" and never went back, however the internet wasn't readily available until the early 1990s and the internet archive only started in 1996. By February 2006 the BBC was using "season", as noted in the main article talk. The oldest version of bbc.co.uk/doctorwho available in the archive is from 1 May 1999. More of the images are available with the archiving from 1 March 2000. By then it had been renamed from The TV Companion to Episode Guide but still broke things down by story. After a lot of time waiting for archive pages to load while writing this i have found it :D  The archive from 2 October 2003  now has the episodes broken down by Doctor and then within each Doctor it is by "season". So based on the staggered archiving of pages it is sometime between 26 January 2002  and 1 April 2003  (which has the new design of the main page but the link to the episodes goes to the nexted archived date for that page on 16 April 2003  and when you click on one of the Doctors it goes to the page from October 2003) that the switch was done to break down by season rather than story. The episode guide was not archived with as great a frequency as the main page. This would be probably the oldest and most specific info that you will find from the BBC regarding their online presentation of the serial. Coïncidentally this is also how i have my downloads of the classics organised, Doctor → Season → Story → Episode. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious  &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

All you have shown is that, at some time in the past, a particular BBC web site used the term 'season '. This does not show that a decision was made by the BBC to use this terminology or give us any clue as to why this might have been done. What you have shown is not sufficient to propagate what appears to me an urban myth in WP. To meet the standards demanded by WP, we need a source showing that the BBC made an intentional decision to change their terminology. Such a source would undoubtedly give the reason that such a change was made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, I bored now. We've shown you a number of sources which show that the classic series are generally classified by season, and the new series by series. You compliant with this appears to be that this does not follow normal British English usage. However, we are reporting the consensus - imposing our own order on chaos is orginial research. Also, We do not have to say how the sources came to the way they are - this can be (and normally is) completely arbitary. Also how things were classified twenty years ago, although potentially interesting and can be reported, is not the deciding factor in how these things are classified now.
 * The BBC, Radio Times and wikipedia are currently using season for the classic series and series the new series. If they changed, we would change. Normal British English usage is not relevant, these are limited technical words, if you like. If you wish to change consensus, you need to provide evidence that another way is at least as widely accepted. Edgepedia (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edgepedia, the standard Bitish English term for a set of episodes is 'series', this is not a technical term it is the normal British word in everyday use, by the BBC, other British TV stations, and British media. No consensus here can change that fact.  It cannot be granted some special 'language exempt'  status here at the whim of editors. If the early Dr Who series were officially designated 'seasons' by the BBC at any time that might be a reason to use that term but there is no evidence that that is the case.


 * As I have repeatedly said, this is not a British/American argument it is about the integrity of WP. We canot propagate information based just on web site usage, we must have reliable sources to show that the term was officially endorsed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, do you have a reliable source to show that it wasn't officially endorsed? If you do, please link to it. Otherwise, the sources linked to above should take precedence as the only evidence we have that one term is favoured over another. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is evidence given on Dr Who article talk page but it is not necessary. There is no doubt that the standard British English term for a set of episodes is 'series' and there is general agreement to use British English here, thus the onus is on those who want to use a non-standard term to justify its use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous links above to show that the BBC's official Doctor Who site currently uses "season" and has done so for many years. Since you assert that the non-standard term should be used officially to justify its use here, the onus is on you to show that the use in the links above is not the result of an official decision. "Series" may be the standard term, but so far the sources show that "season" is both commonly and officially used in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)Reliably sourced evidence has been provided that season is the preferred term in this situation. There doesn't need to be a good, logical reason or even a reason, just evidence that this is the situation, and that has been provided in bucketloads. The onus is now on you to rebut that (i.e. show that the preferred term in this specific instance, not British English in general is series), which you haven't done. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Martin, Martin, Martin, Martin.... you have more than just me telling you this. The rhetoric is tiresome, your argument lacks any credible evidence, this keeps going in circles, and really i am offended that you dismiss every bit of evidence i present for being American (which most are not), or colloquial, or from an official source. By those apparent standards there is no evidence that is acceptable as they all would fall into one of those three categories. It is though until i (or someone else) supply evidence to your stance anything and everything else doesn't count. When presented with evidence that is hard to dismiss you fall back to the "British English throughout consensus" argument. For anyone who reads the two pages this discussion has been on they would see that - all they need do is read your post that most recently precedes this one. Essentially you are, pending proof to the contrary, calling the BBC a bunch of idiots for continuously publishing something on their website which they did not and do not support these past 7 years. There comes a time when it is best to let it go and retain some dignity. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 19:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a simpler issue here as well, that of consensus. We clearly have consensus, both here and on the main Doctor Who discussion page, that season is the term to be used.  There's one user who's attempting, by setting up overly rigid standards of evidence entirely his own, to distract us from that fact.  Given that, this is a pointless dialogue with someone who has no intention of moving from his stance, and consensus should take the day.  Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you typed the correct term in that second sentence I get confused at times too with how long and also circular this has been. Long circles :P <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious  &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected, and now in boldface, what I meant to say. My apologies for any confusion I may have created.  Drmargi (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Drmargi i agree, the majority of editors here prefering season mixed with credible evidence and lack of sufficent evidence from martin for series can only mean that we should use season and finish this long discussion. Pro66 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand the point that I am am making. This is not a matter of 'evidence for' vs 'evidence against' it is about the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia.  I am going to propose an RfC to get some input from uninvolved editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What would actually undermine our credibility is if we started ignoring our polices on sourcing and original research, two of our most fundamental policies, in order to conform to an individual editors personal preference that series is more correct than seasons in British English (a fact incidentally that hasn't been backed up by any specific sources ironically). -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not need to provide sources to show that 'series' is the normal British term any more that you need to provide sources to show that 'season' is the normal American term. It is an accepted fact, but if you want to check you could look in, say Collins English Dictionary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just some thoughts from the sidelines...
 * IIUC, because of the variance of English, the general guideline is that the "local" variant be used based on article topic. And that variant would be generally be governed by the Manual of Style generally accepted in that area's publishing industry.
 * As with most, if not all, Wikipedia guidelines, if there is consensus that the use of an atypical word or phrase in an article is a proper exception, then the exception stands.
 * Such a consensus can be at a Project or article level.
 * If I'm reading the above correctly, the standing consensus has been for the exception to use "season" for shows from 1963 through 1989 instead of "series". And this is based on general usage as well as those closet to the show using the term. The lone voice against is relying on "This is improper English."
 * The long and the short - It is OK for there to be exceptions if there is consensus to support it. Changing that usage requires changing consensus. You have to convince people that using a writing style guide is the preferable way to go.
 * Right now the consensus that Doctor Who is an exception regarding "season"/"series" usage. And it isn't being changed by the looks of things. Haranguing isn't going to change that. Neither is pointing to "sources" that wouldn't cut it in the article. It maybe for gritted teeth and begrudging acceptance that now isn't the time to try and change this. And that next week likely wouldn't a good time to mount a new attempt. - J Greb (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then again... - J Greb (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Season or series - Request for Comment
Some editors want to use the term 'season' for the earlier sets of episodes of Dr Who, other editors want to use the term 'series'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The case for using the standard British English term (series) is:

There is a long standing and recorded consensus, in accordance with WP policy, to use British English throughout the article. However, it is asserted by some that there is a special reason to use the normal US term of 'season' for some sets of episodes of Dr Who instead of the usual UK term 'series'. The reason given is that the BBC used this term. If it is indeed true that for some reason the BBC made a decision to use the term 'season' in reference to Dr Who then this fact is worthy of note in the article itself and justifies the use of 'season' appropriately in the article, however in order to do this we need a reliable source which shows that the BBC have clearly and intentionally used the term 'season' is specific relation to Dr Who. It is not sufficient that there are many web sites, including one or two by the BBC that use the word 'season', especially in the light of the claim above (see top of 'Season or series' section) that 'Jean-Marc Lofficier misused the term in his Programme Guide in 1981'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of reliable source you are looking for? Do you feel this "needs" a newspaper article or something specifically talking about how they made a specific decision about this? The way I look at it the closest to a reliable source you are EVER going to get on this is the BBC website. If it was just a mistake they would have changed it back, not something that is hard to do on the web. It is of course possible that they made a mistake at "some point" but they appear to have continued to do it after knowing it was made. At this point it isn't a bug it's a feature. <font color="#999" face="Tahoma"><font color="#008">James  (<font color="#000">T |<font color="#000">C )  00:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Having taken not of some of the comments here I am now suggesting that we keep the term 'season' but have in the article as a footnote: Although in general the word "series" is more commonly used in British English, most reliable sources on the subject of Doctor Who refer to each year of production of "classic" Doctor Who (1963–1989) as a "season" and this convention has become established in Doctor Who'' popular culture. The reason for this usage is not known.'' Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
[Reply to Jamesofur] What I am looking for is any reliable source which shows that the BBC made a policy or editorial decision to use the term 'season' in relation to specific early Dr Who series. If no such source can be found then we cannot propagate the theory that such a decision was, in fact, made. This is how WP works, or how it should work. It is not up to editors here to propose a theory that the BBC specifically called the early series of Dr Who seasons and then justify this by finding a BBC web site that happens to use that term. There could be many reasons why 'seasons' is used on the BBC web site: maybe the person who originally wrote the site was American; maybe the terminology was copied from another BBC source written by a non-British English speaker; maybe for some reason the BBC decided that it would apply the term 'Season' specifically to the early Dr Who series (although you would expect some evidence of this somewhere together with the reason for the decision). The point is that we cannot tell which of these reasons is the correct one so we must not support the truth of any one reason over any other. People come to WP for accurate information not informed guesswork. This may only be a piece of TV trivia but if errors are found in one section of WP it degrades the perception of the whole thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't read all of the discussion above, but I'd have thought that this would suffice as supporting evidence for what you're looking for. That link is to the "classic Doctor Who" section of the BBC's Doctor Who website, and it clearly lists each set of episodes as a "season".  (The link is to the First Doctor section; the same usage is found on the pages for the Second Doctor, Third Doctor and so forth, up to the Seventh Doctor.)  It's about as official as any BBC source.


 * Furthermore, the term "season" is used in the following Doctor Who reference books: Doctor Who: The Television Companion by David J. Howe and Stephen James Walker (1998, ISBN 0-653-40588-0); Doctor Who: The Discontinuity Guide by Paul Cornell, Martin Day and Keith Topping (1995, ISBN 0-426-20442-5); Doctor Who: The Sixties, Doctor Who: The Seventies and Doctor Who: The Eighties by Howe, Mark Stammers and Walker (1992, 1994, 1997; ISBN 0-86369-707-0, ISBN 0-86369-871-9, ISBN 0-7535-0128-7); the Handbook series by Howe, Stammers and Walker (1992–1998; The First Doctor ISBN 0-426-20430-1 — ISBNs for the other six volumes in the series can be provided upon request); Doctor Who: The Book of Lists by Justin Richards and Andrew Martin (1997, ISBN 0-563-40569-4); Doctor Who from A to Z by Gary Gillatt (1998, ISBN 0-563-40589-9); the About Time series by Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood (2004–2010; Vol. 1, ISBN 978-0-9759446-0-8 — ISBNs for the other five volumes available upon request); and Pocket Essentials: Doctor Who by Mark Campbell (2000, ISBN 1-903047-19-6).  (Incidentally, all these books are by British authors, and all but the About Time series were published in the UK.)  Doctor Who Magazine also consistently uses "season" to refer to the years of the so-called "classic series".  I did find one reliable source which lists the first twenty-six years of Doctor Who as "Series One", "Series Two", "Series Three" and so forth: BFI Pocket Essentials: Doctor Who by Kim Newman (2005, ISBN 1-84457-090-8).  However, this would seem to be outweighed by the vast preponderance of works which use "season" to refer to the production years of the 1963–1989 incarnation of Doctor Who.


 * I don't know whether this usage reflects terminology used within the BBC at the time of production, but that's not really relevant (unless there's a page somewhere here that specifically claims that it was). It is not the job of Wikipedia to justify the terminology found in reliable sources.  Our usage should merely reflect that found in said reliable sources.  It is true that "series" is the more common British usage; however, within the sub-speciality of Doctor Who history, the term "season" is used.  This may very well originate from Jean-Marc L'officier's Programme Guide, but that's not a reason to abandon it here.  Whatever the origins of the term, it is what is used in the preponderance of reliable sources about Doctor Who, so that's what we should use here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument that you seem to be making is that use of the the term 'season' for some series has become established in Dr Who popular culture. That is fine and is worthy of note in the article. Would you be happy to incude something along the following lines in the article and the MoS? For some of the earlier series of Dr Who the use of the term 'season' to refer to what in normal British English would be called  a 'series' has become established in much English and American popular Dr Who culture.  The reason for this is not clear.  This term 'season' is therefore used in this article to refer the sets of episodes shown in the so-called 'classic series'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this usage reflects terminology used within the BBC at the time of production, but that's not really relevant (unless there's a page somewhere here that specifically claims that it was). plenty of evidence of that, take for example This BBC panel report from BBC research (@1982) talks about the show being a series, something that is consistent across all panel reports, for example this report talks about 'first episode of the new doctor who series'.

In addition, This Radio times report from 1970 talks about a 'new series', while this radio times article from 1982 uses the phrase 'last series'. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think what has been made is a good case that the term 'season' has become established in popular Dr Who culture. What has not been shown is that the normal British English term for a set of episodes is or ever was was 'season', or that the BBC made an official editorial or policy decision to use that term. I have no objection to the term 'season' being used in the article provided that sufficient explanation is given that the reader is not led to assume something that may not be true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is where I'd have an issue. I don't think it is misleading to do anything else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Martin, Martin, Martin.... as the initiator of this discussion it is i dare say incumbent upon you to contribute more than analysis of the sources we supply. You have not provided a single credible source for all of your arguments, instead relying upon others to gather it for you. I for one on the principle of do your own research refuse to show "that the normal British English term for a set of episodes is or ever was was 'season', or that the BBC made an official editorial or policy decision to use that term." If you want the BBC to make an official declaration that the past 7 years of specific publicly verifiable usage of season on their website is not a gross perpetuated typographical error on their part, good luck.  <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious  &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you make a statement in WP then it is necessary to justify it using reliable sources. I am not proposing any statement or special implication in a WP article. There is current agreement to use British English throughout the article and the normal UK word for a set of episodes is 'series' (no, I do not need a reliable source to show something that every native British English speaker knows any more that you need a source to show that the normal US term is 'season', this is a pointless diversion from the matter in hand).  Thus no sources are needed to do exactly what we say we will do, which is to use British English throughout.  Anyone who wants to depart from this consensus needs to have a reason, backed by reliable sources, to do so. Josiah Rowe makes a good case, supported by sources he has researched, to say that 'season' has become the established term in British and American popular Dr Who culture.  If you want to say or imply more than that then the onus is on you to provide sources to support you assertion.
 * Do you really object to including the simple, verifiable, neutral, and informative statement that I have proposed? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Man this discussion is getting unnecassary long, Martin you say that there is a 'current agreement to use British English throughout the article' but the thing is that British English should be used in the article but as the discussion has proven there is an exception to this rule whether you like it or not, people have shown you relieble sources as to why we use season in place of series yet you and just you disaprove of it and still want to ignore the sources given to you by us and ignore the census wanting to use season over series and fail to give any relible evidence to change this exception. If you want to change this exception then stop typing about season being American and series is British and give us a relible source that proves your point and then the exception can be thinked over or otherwise get use to the fact that we have an exception to the rule. Pro66 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be kind enough to read what I have written. I do not want to change 'season' to 'series', I want to include a simple, verifiable, neutral, and informative statement to explain why 'season' is used and to prevent misunderstandings and future argument over this subject.  Do you have any objection to that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it's necessary to have such a statement in the article; it's a pretty minor issue for most readers who are looking for an overview of the television programme. I suggest that instead, we could create an FAQ on the talk page, which could address the issue.  I suggest this wording:"Why does the article use the word 'season' instead of 'series' to refer to the production years of the 'classic' run of Doctor Who? Although in general the word 'series' is more commonly used in British English, most reliable sources on the subject of Doctor Who refer to each year of production of 'classic' Doctor Who (1963–1989) as a 'season'. This is a standard convention in writing on the production history of Doctor Who, and Wikipedia follows suit."Would that be acceptable?  If there are other recurrent issues which should be added to such an FAQ (using the FAQ template), we could discuss them on the article's talk page as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support that as I too think that it's a minor issue for most readers. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer at least a footnote saying, 'Although in general the word "series" is more commonly used in British English, most reliable sources on the subject of Doctor Who refer to each year of production of "classic" Doctor Who (1963–1989) as a "season" and this convention has become established Doctor Who popular culture. The reason for this usage is not known'.

Writing, 'This is a standard convention in writing on the production history of Doctor Who',  is confusing and not justified by the facts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Martin's wording, but would prefer to see it added to the talk page rather than the article for the same reasons as Josiah. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see it in the article for two reasons. Firstly, it is relevant to the subject that a unique terminology has arisen concerning it, secondly it should deter further discussion and argument on the subject by presenting the facts clearly and neutrally to new editors.  If it is footnote then it will not take up space in the main body of the article.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's added as a footnote it's quite likely that new editors won't see it at all. If they want to discuss the issue, they'll come to the talk page as the place to hold the discussion, so it should be there so that they do notice it. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. New editors are likely to see the word 'season' used in an article about a British TV series and change it to 'series' without looking at the talk page.  A footnote not only shows on the article page at the point that might be edited but provides useful and interesting information to readers who may wonder why the term 'season' is used.  I am trying hard to compromise here, what is your objection to a footnote? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In a long article with several footnotes and references already, one more is quite likely to be totally missed amongst the others. Looking at the edit history, very few editors new or old have attempted to change the term, but there have been quite a few discussions about it on various talk pages. So why should it be any more likely for a new editor to change it now when they hardly ever have before? What we need to stop is endless discussions like this one, and a talk page notice is the best way to do that. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the concern is that well-intentioned editors will change "season" to "series" without realizing that the subject has been discussed ad nauseam, I think that a hidden-text note at the first usage would be better than a footnote. As Alzarian says, a footnote could easily get lost amidst the many footnotes and references already in the article.  And I really don't think that this minor linguistic quirk is sufficiently noteworthy in and of itself to merit a mention in the article proper.  My research showed that "season" was widely used, but I didn't find a single source that explicitly addressed the usage.  (Even the GeoCities page that you mentioned at the top of this discussion seems to have disappeared.)  If the issue of "season" vs. "series" word choice were notable, there would be some mention of it somewhere.  As it is, it's just a stylistic decision, and as such belongs "behind the scenes" of the article — in hidden text (for the benefit of well-intentioned editors) and/or on the talk page.


 * As for the wording, I'm not mad about the phrase "Doctor Who popular culture", and I think that saying "The reason for this is unknown" is unnecessary. How about this:"Although in general the word 'series' is more commonly used in British English, most reliable sources on the subject of Doctor Who refer to each year of production of 'classic' Doctor Who (1963–1989) as a 'season', and this convention has become established in writing about Doctor Who."  I dare say that my library of Doctor Who nonfiction is fairly extensive, and that the survey of works using "season" as opposed to "series" is sufficient to say that it's an established convention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not up to editors here to establish conventions. This is what worries me we are not reporting history, we are making it.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, we're only establishing conventions for the articles on Wikipedia (DW:MOS). Other people on other sites don't have to follow these conventions.  We're following the conventions set by the above mentioned books, journals, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the article is in Wikipedia, which is intended to be a authoritative reference work. We need a reliable secondary source, such as an article which says something like, 'There is now a convention to use the term "season" when referring to certain sets of Dr Who episodes', before we can use the term without comment in WP.  Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * Okay...don't know what world you're living in, but an encyclopaedia is not supposed to be authoratative.  It may be comprehensive in that it covers everthing from A to Z perhaps, but compare an encyclopaedia entry to a section of a library dealing with the same subject and...not authoratative in the least.
 * And it's redundant to have a secondary source state the above when the secondary sources are doing the above. All we need to do is state that we're following the conventions set buy the various secondary sources.  DonQuixote (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Martin, you are making history. This has been going on for over a fortnight now. I took a 5 day sabbatical. "The reason for this usage is not known." is pretty much a lie. As to your preamble, "Having taken not of some of the comments here...", i am offended. The matter of you bouncing around sections makes the continuity of the discussion awkward to ascertain. Josiah makes a very good point in preferring a comment rather than a footnote. If someone wants to change the text they will see the comment when editing. At the most, if a suitable place for it can be found, a single sentence stating that season is the globally accepted term for the classic episodes is sufficient for the article. Here i also support Josiah's suggestion for being simple, accurate, and well written.

How about putting this ditty about the use of season in an edit notice? A few of us here can do that and it would be an alternative or additional approach to making a comment at each use of season in the article.

I admit, i no longer see how you can claim this has been done for the good of the project. You could have added the comment to the article yourself or asked for a modification to the edit notice. For all of this the result is no change, previous consensus reäffirmed. It need not have ever been this complex. A little bit of research on your part before starting this would have answered your own query, "This is a British programme and the normal British word for a set of programmes is 'series'. What is the justification for using the normal US term 'season'?" <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious  &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You challenge my statement, 'The reason for this usage is not known'. So what do you claim is the reason that many web sites use the word 'season'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously want an answer to that? I would direct you to the one bit of info you brought into this discussion. It spoke of this book. Noöne here was disputing the existence of that book and the role it played in shaping the DW world in this matter, until now. The reason is there. It is written all over the place. It appears that you don't like. Not liking something is not grounds to include a statement that there is no known source of said something. This also is the same as your "prove the BBC intended to do that" position. long circles <tt>:( </tt> <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious &amp; <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify for Martin's sake: we wouldn't be establishing a convention (except, as Deliriousandlost points out, insofar as we're reaffirming a MOSWHO convention, like using italics for serials and quotation marks for episodes). We would not be, as Martin fears, "making history"; we'd be following the established usage of reliable sources.  The reliable sources on the history of Doctor Who use the term "season".  Another way of saying that is that it is an "established convention".  We don't need to have a source explicitly saying that it's a convention when we have dozens of sources using the term as a convention.  (Or, as DonQuixote puts it above, we don't need secondary sources stating it when we have secondary sources doing it.)  We wouldn't be saying that any other source has to follow that convention, but I think it's unarguable that it is an established convention in the field.


 * As for the origins of this usage: I agree that the term "season" most likely entered the vocabulary of people writing about Doctor Who production history because of Jean-Marc Lofficier's Programme Guide, which was the first work of its kind for Doctor Who. But we don't have a reliable source which explicitly says that (mainly because it's such an incredibly minor point).  Saying "the reason for this usage is not known" is not accurate, but the sources for crediting Lofficier don't meet the standards of Wikipedia.  Why do we need to say anything about the origins of the usage at all?  We're only discussing it because Martin asked.  The reliable sources justify that the usage of "season" is in keeping with Wikipedia policy; that's all that is needed.  Any more, whether an FAQ on the talk page or an edit notice (an idea which I prefer to my earlier suggestion of hidden text, by the way) is frankly an act of generosity and grace towards one individual with a bee in his bonnet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Date template
A single editor insists on removing Start date from the infobox on The Beast Below, making false claims that "no other 'Doctor Who' episode uses it", and despite the fact that the infobox documentation explains that it's necessary for the embedded hCalendar microformat to function. I've tried reasoning with them via edit summaries and the article's talk page, to no avail. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * erm - may I ask what the point of that template is? Can't you just .... write it in plain text? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading Andy's post again wherein he explains exactly what the point of the template is. It Makes the hCalendar function work. If other stories don't have it yet that is simply because those editors who are switching the date items in infoboxes have not gotten to them yet. Given time all dates will be switched over to it. MarnetteD | Talk 16:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem may be the jargon. Someone needs to explain, in simple English, what the hCalendar is.  If you follow the link to the article, you get a lot of gobbledy gook that someone with a BS in programming might understand, but it totally unaccessible to the average user, a major flaw in a number of technical articles that fail to open with the simple explanation of the function that would be present in any print encyclopedia.  That's a real problem around here.  It's hard to buy into the extra trouble the template demands when we have no idea why we bother.  Drmargi (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of hCalendar reads:

"It allows parsing tools (for example other websites, or Firefox's Operator extension) to extract the details of the event, and display them using some other website, index or search them, or to load them into a calendar or diary program, for instance."

What's not to understand, in that? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)