Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 24

nominated Template:Doctor Who Glitz Stories for deletion
I've put the above template up for deletion, as I don't think 3 stories warrants a template. Discussion here 212.20.248.35 (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with the nomination as well. I might help if his non-television stories were included as Mission: Impractical and Head Games but not much.--DrWho42 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Do non-screenshot images belong in the infobox?
I think not, but TreasuryTag insists in putting the image of a Weeping Angel, which does not originate from the episodes "The Time of Angels" and "Flesh and Stone", in the infobox, while the iamge is better suited in the articles itself. Input please. — Edokter • Talk  • 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus has been - right back to when infoboxes began being added to articles - that the image should be from the story/episode that the article is about. Among the reasons stated when a major image removal occurred two or three years ago (though I can't remember exactly when) was that - not only did a pic have to be from the episode - but that the pic had to be illustrative of something important from the story and it had to be mentioned somewhere in the article. We had pics that met the criteria for "The Last of the Time Lords" and they were still removed and we don't have a pic for that story to this day. The Weeping Angel pic has nothing to do with the two 11th Dr stories and should be removed. This pic appears to not meet the specific wikipedia guidelines for pictures, the general MoS, the television wikiproject MoS or the Dr Who MoS. It will, no doubt get removed/replaced at some point in time. Sooner would be better. MarnetteD | Talk 00:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I have no objection to the image per se; the image was taken(?) by Treasury himself, just that it does not belong in the infobox. — Edokter • Talk  • 01:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The guidelines "illustrative of something important from the story and it had to be mentioned somewhere in the article" is referring I believe to the requirements of non-free images which have to have adequate justification for inclusion (Non-free content criteria). In the absence of a picture, anything that illustrates the article is useful eg (as in this case) a key character or element of the programme. Infobox television says of image choice "An image relevant to the show." which I think a weeping angle - as the "monster" of the episode - is. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My earlier note applied to infoboxes also. Thanks for the clarification about the non-free image situation GL. I would ask (since the pic requirements are always confusing to me) why TT's screenshots would not be subject to the same requirements. In any case why can't TT, or another editor, add a screen shot from the relevant 11th Dr episodes. IMO they are not exactly the same as the ones from "Blink" though I know that probably could be considered splitting hairs. BTW GL your note has angel spelled as angle towards the end - it is always a hoot that spellcheck only works when a word is spelled wrong NOT when it is spelled like another word :-) - I'd change it but I don't like altering other editors talk page comments - even when it is something simple like this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Asuming TreasuryTag took the picture himself, it didn't occur to me that the file may be non-free. As the source does not indicate any license, I have lited the image on Possibly unfree files/2010 September 22. — Edokter •  Talk  • 23:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me towards this discussion, Edokter. Lucky I didn't have to find it by searching through your contributions or anything. Now, can anybody spell out an actual, tangible reason (rather than just "we don't do that here") as to why an image of a Weeping Angel should not go in the infobox of an episode featuring the Weeping Angels? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constabulary ─╢ 13:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the infobox historically only contains screenshots that come directly form the episode. Anything that does not directly originate from the episode in question, has no place in the infobox, as it has no relation to the production of the episode. Such images should be placed in the article itself. — Edokter • Talk  • 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a reason. That's, "historically we don't do that so let's not every change anything," and is no argument at all. I specifically asked for a direct reason. Do you have any? Because if not, the image can stay in the infobox. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ─╢ 13:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Very simply because it's misleading, it suggests that particular image was in the Episode. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What Cameron said... I think my reason is clear enough; non-episode related images do not belong in the infobox. — Edokter • Talk  • 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The infobox serves to show either a significant scene from the episode or, for example on some Simpsons' episodes, a picture depicting significant guest appearances etc. This image, while it would be rather nice to illustrate Weeping Angels, does not really show something from the episode and might, as Cameron points out, be misleading. Regards  So Why  15:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah it would be great on weeping angel - why isn't it already being used there? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say they shouldn't be there per everything above. And also aesthetically, something I would say a screenshot-sized image looks much nicer. And surely we shouldn't have the same image on both articles, with the image not being derived from anything in Flesh and Stone? I have been bold and placed the image at Weeping Angels, however. U-Mos (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"It's misleading" – are you for real? You think that it's misleading to put a picture of a Weeping Angel in the infobox of an article covering an episode featuring the Weeping Angels? I've never read such bollocks in my life. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► draftsman ─╢ 12:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe this is the right time where you say "OK, I see everyone disagrees with me" instead of questioning our sanity and labeling our comments as "bollocks". Your comments are noted; there is no need to get insulting just because you don't agree with the rest. Consensus is clear that the infobox is ment for production-related information, and the image is not production related, because it was not produced by the BBC. — Edokter • Talk  • 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would like me to file an RfC where the wider community can comment as to whether including a picture of the aliens appearing in a particular episode is misleading, then I will gladly do so, and am fairly confident of the responses that will be received. If you consider that I have been insulting, feel free to initiate an arbitration case against me. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► secretariat ─╢ 04:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we want to you stop fighting against the frequently-expressed consensus on this matter. If an RfC is required for you to recognize that consensus is against you in this matter, go for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the level of analysis that a generic Weeping Angels provides is to illustrate that they appear at all. But, considering these episodes develop the characters, should we not specifically provide images which illustrate real-world creative decisions on Moffat's part? Simply, it needs to be an image from the episode.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You took a pretty picture, you want it plastered on Wikipedia we get it, but you need to take a step back and a deep breath. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on illustrating creative decisions could be perhaps the rotting/unrotting angels for The Time of Angels and maybe a shot from when the angels are seen to move for the first time from Flesh and Stone? U-Mos (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey links
As has been mentioned before we still have numerous links (sometimes 3 on a page) to the defunct Outpost Gallifrey website. I know that some of you know how to resurrect these through some kind of archiving feature of the world wide web. Since this is a fairly big task for anyone editor to take on is there any chance that the job could be given to a bot? If not and if no one wants to do this labor intensive task on their own I think that we might want to discuss removing them. Readers of the articles may become frustrated getting repeated 404 messages when clicking on items in our external links sections. What do you think? MarnetteD | Talk 01:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it's a dirty job but it's got to be done. I think the scale of the task is off-putting, plus it involves technical jiggery-pokery that might be beyond some people's ability. Of the few than can do it, I'd suggest splitting the task into sections - one person per doctor, or something. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I am pretty much a computer doofus so I fit in the "beyond my ability category". because of that I felt guilty about bringing this up again but WikiP gets enough criticism without numerous dead links being added to the list. For what it is worth I can add my deepest thanks to those that can complete this task. MarnetteD | Talk 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all links need resurrection. I don't think that Outpost Gallifrey meets Reliable Source requirements for when its used a source for information - the more so when other sources are cited for the info. A Brief History of Time (Travel) is superior as its sources are given. That said, if the pattern of links through the wayback machine can be discerned then updating the template will serve to bring most of those used as external links - with less effort - back. As an example http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=ss is archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20080629192600/http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=ss. Replacing "ss" with "tt" gives you the Dominators reviews. (in this case). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Having had a quick look at the template, it doesn't seem too difficult to edit - I would propose a new template be created with a slightly different title based on the same code to incoporate the added info of the waybackmachine and then a slight edit to each instance on the page should do it.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a bot already doing a lot of these - for example. These have been happening for some days now. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your replies. Just one point for clarification. I was referring to the many OG links that we have in our "External links" sections. I think that some of you are referring to OG when used as a source in a ref or a footnote. I know that the bot that Redrose64 linked to is working specifically on refs. I don't know whether it could be adapted to fix EL's also. Because my computer literacy is almost nil I just wanted to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing - er I mean two different things that have the same OG linking problem :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you refer to the template, such as the one removed with . It would be more difficult I think, because there isn't a simple formula for converting the gallifreyone link into a wayback one. I suspect the way to go would be to turn each  into a, leaving the parameters alone (eg , which will produce a full URL. That should not only get it noticed by the bot, but also make it bot-fixable. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this work? Alzarian16 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the number 20080629192600 guaranteed to be consistent? As I recall, when something like that was tried a few months back, it failed in many instances. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks fairly promising:
 * Every televised story from An Unearthly Child to Blink (the last episode broadcast before updates stopped) uses it.
 * The Big Finish audio plays from Storm Warning to The Next Life seem to use it.
 * Novelisations such as The Paradise Of Death also have the same number.

On the basis of this I think we can be fairly confident that at worst the vast majority of the links will work. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the Wheel in Space review:
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20080629192600/http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=ss is the one taken on 29 June 2008 (the last archive date listed)
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20080415010651/http://www.gallifreyone.com/review.php?id=ss is the one taken on 15 April 2008 (the one previous)
 * the FAQ gives the number as the time and date as yyyymmddhhmmss. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The numbers are date and time of archiving, quite so: but my point was that what works for one might not necessarily work for the others - can we be sure that the archive took a complete set of pages simultaneously? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not unless we check every page individually :) But we do know that the vast majority were taken then, as I tried to demonstrate in my last comment. Even if it doesn't work all the time, it's still better than the current template, which doesn't work any of the time! Alzarian16 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion seems to have died, I've decided to be bold and update OG review myself. I've just tested a few and it seems to have worked. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, hopefully it works on all. In case it doesn't, I have added an optional "archivedate" parameter, so you can use to create a link to a different archived version. Regards  So  Why  10:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. It seems to get around the possible problems rather neatly. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nightmare Man
Just found out The Nightmare Man (The Sarah Jane Adventures) has the Slitheen episode template on it. Does anyone object to me removing it? After all, the Slitheen made a brief cameo and had no effect whatsoever on the storyline. It, in other words, was not a 'Slitheen episode'. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That template has a section for minor appearances - you could move the episode down to that. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A trivial appearance eg as part of a flashback or dream hardly warrants linking - is that the level of appearance we are talking about? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor apearances should have at least some connection to the story. In this case it isn't. — Edokter • Talk  • 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, what happened was:
 * Luke: Sarah Jane, I'm going to college
 * Sarah Jane: Okay, let's talk about it, just let me do this... *blows up Slitheen* Okay, now lets go home and talk about it.
 * Basically, it was a dramatic effect to show that Sarah Jane is always on an adventure. It has nothing to do with the storyline, and it could've been done with any other monster and there would be no difference whatsoever. Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a minor appearance. It's no less important than any other minor appearance (isn't Human nature just a drawing? - or Dalek just a stuffed arm and not the whole creature? - and Pandorica opens just a brief mention?) on that template, or any other (eg here they are mostly archive footage - this is a completely new appearance) 212.20.248.35 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Infact going through those on the Dalek Template - prop only, archive, archive, archive, two scenes at the end, archive, the one story that isn't, voices off screen, flashbacks at beginning, archive, flashback ,brief shadow that leads into the next one. 212.20.248.35 (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who/The Sarah Jane Adventures?
I noticed we have a Torchwood taskforce. Considering we have an article for every SJA episode and most of its primary characters, would a taskforce for it be a good idea? I'm not sure on it, since I doubt its talked about as much. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the important question is this: Do we have enough people interested in SJA to create a taskforce? I.e. is there enough need for separate structures? Regards  So Why  14:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: The Movie (2011)
Probably of interest to project members. Maccy69 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Aah, too bad it was a hoax. I think Johnny Depp would have been a great Doctor :-D  So Why  22:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think it's a pity that David Kohler isn't really going to be the 17th Doctor Who until the day after tomorrow... Alzarian16 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► condominium ─╢ 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced bios of no-longer living people
The balloon of course went up about BLPs. But is the project tracking unsourced biographies of sadly no-longer-living people? I just noticed that Ian Marter doesn't have a single formal external reference source. Of course his work itself is reference for his work. But it would be good to have some proper sourcing for the considerable personal information too.

This was just an example I happened across. But perhaps it would be worth checking whether there are a lot more significant unsourced bios that could use some referencing? Jheald (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean like Michael Wisher is unsourced? Not a lot there but still unsourced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, under English law, "dead men can't sue", to put it bluntly. You can only libel somebody who is alive to file a case against you; so, unrefd biogs of dead people are much less of a worry to the WikiMedia lawyers than unrefd BLPs are. Yes, per WP:V, we need to ref everything which might be challenged; but if we don't, and the subject isn't alive to object, we won't get slapped with writs for damages. So, BLPs take priority - but once all the BLPs are refd (an uphill task if ever there was one), the deletionists will turn their attention to other unrefd articles.
 * I don't know of much that can be used to ref personal (non-Harry Sullivan) info about Ian Marter, except for the five column-inches at the back of -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Jane's Alien Files
Build up Sarah Jane Alien files — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfxprefects (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of 'please' – and ever heard of 'WP:SIG' ? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constabulary ─╢ 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I build a lead, but notability needs to be established to remain an article on it's own. Otherwise, merging with The Sarah Jane Adventures is probably best. — <b style="color:#008">Edokter</b> • Talk  • 11:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the Eighth Doctor coming back?
New Eighth Doctor costume revealed I just heard the news recently. Is this just for promotional purposes or will there be more 8th Doctor in the future besides just audio adventures?--DrWho42 (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not the people to ask. We collate verifiable information already published by reliable sources to make available in the form of an encyclopedia, and don't speculate on what might or might not happen. See What Wikipedia Is. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read the article, you would have seen that the costume is "unofficial" and "to be used for future promotional purposes." ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constabulary ─╢ 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I know, but I wanted to see if there was any recent news following up on this story. Should this be noted on the Eighth Doctor article?--DrWho42 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if a reliable source can be provided for the purposes of verification. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the Eighth Doctor a railfan?
I have recently noticed - is it true? If so, please could somebody source it, and also cleanup/wikify the entry - it reads rather cryptically to me so must be even more obscure to the casual reader. For example, does "S02E05 of the Audio Book Series" denote Grand Theft Cosmos? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I remember rightly, the opening portion of that story takes place on a steam train, and the statement is made by Lucie Miller (she also compares the steam train favourably to the modern-day Pacer). The BBC Short Trips story Model Train Set also suggests it. Trouble is, I can't find anything approaching a reliable source to support the conclusion that he's a railfan, which smacks of synthesis. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Francine Jones
An article that you have been involved in editing, Francine Jones, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Noble
I've put Sylvia Noble up for deletion. See the discussion here. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider deleting Clive Jones, Leo Jones, Francine Jones et al, too.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Eleventh Doctor Rumoured replacements
In the article on the Eleventh Doctor there is a section on speculation about rumored replacements. Speculation from various sources including the Daily Mail is included. A reference to speculation about the black actor Colin Salmon in the Sun was added to the article by a prior editor. It was deleted with a comment that we don't print things which are just rumours from the Sun - but that is exactly what the section was about, rumoured replacements. I reverted the deletion. The speculation is verifiable and notable. But it has once again been removed by an editor saying "it's just some trash speculation by a trash newspaper". I am not sure if this is to be taken as meaning that the Sun is not a notable source of rumours, or if speculation about Colin Salmon is trash compared with Catherine Tate, or if the entire section should be deleted. I believe the mention is notable - it was picked ub by at least this source which quotes the Sun: Colin Salmon to be first black Doctor Who? and the rather notable Wired Magazine quotes the 'The Next Doctor' portraying actor David Morrissey as the source for the same speculation

Here is the section with the repeatedly deleted comment in bold:"The rumoured replacements included Catherine Tate (then playing the Doctor's companion Donna Noble), Robert Carlyle, Jason Statham, David Morrissey, Alan Davies, James Nesbitt, and Colin Salmon, who, according to the Sun would have been the first black Doctor. The Daily Mail also reported the theories that two Doctors could be created—eventually proven to be correct."Editors who wish to comment on whether speculation over Colin Salmon as a notable rumour should be mentioned in the article can comment here. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Writing "according to the Sun" is fine if you're talking about past tense speculation. The only situation is where you'd use it to prove or demonstrate anything in the present or future. I come down on your side.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 05:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is at the link above, but it is important to note two things here... one, as a matter of good practice we do not report on every rumour that papers such as the Sun choose to manufacture. Two, the Wired article mentioned above does not actually ever state that Morrissey made the claim about Salmon. An examination of the article shows that Wired said that there were "reports" about Salmon. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Series 5 soundtrack title
Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 5

I have yet to get this, but I notice that the front cover of the Series 5 soundtrack doesn't have "Original Television Soundtrack" anywhere on it. If this is the case, shouldn't the article be named "Doctor Who - Series 5 (soundtrack)" or some such? I think it got it's current name due to following the previous soundtrack releases' titles. Etron81 (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A similar question for this newly created article: Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - A Christmas Carol - this release is listed only as Doctor Who - A Christmas Carol on its Amazon listing Etron81 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's part of a family of articles:

Edgepedia (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack
 * Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 3
 * Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack – Series 4
 * Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 4: The Specials
 * Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - Series 5
 * Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack - A Christmas Carol


 * I am aware of that, but my question is this: The first 4 releases all have "Original Television Soundtrack" as part of their titles on the front cover - Series 5 does not (time will tell with a Christmas Carol).Should we just continue the format of the previous releases regardless of whether "Original Television Soundtrack" is part of the title on the cover? Etron81 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it part of the title? The publisher's website doesn't seem to call them that. Edgepedia (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to query whether or not this family of articles should exist at all. Checking through them, only Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack appears to have sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and even that is marginal. The others probably wouldn't survive AfD in their current form. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge to a 'List of' article? Edgepedia (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already List of Doctor Who music releases but this doesn't list the traklistings like the individual articles. I woudl say that merging them with their Series articles would be fine (or with the individual episode in the case of A Christmas Carol) - but this does leave out the Specials soundtrack as we don't have a "specials" article Etron81 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity... What is it called? Basically, the article title should reflect the real title, unless it becomes ambiguous (as Doctor Who - Series 5 would be). — <b style="color:#008">Edokter</b> • Talk  — 00:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the Series 5 release, as I only have the 1st album covering Series 1 and 2, BU I can say that after looking at the Specials release, that one is titled "Doctor Who The Specials Original Television Soundtrack" on the spine and titled like this on the front -
 * Original Television Soundtrack
 * Doctor Who
 * Series 4
 * The Specials
 * Etron81 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I recently purchased this release and the title is noted on the spine as "Doctor Who Series 5 - The Orginal TV Soundtrack" and like this on the front:
 * Doctor Who
 * Series 5
 * Music by Murray Gold

I'm partial to the Spine title, but maybe we should a comment from the Albums wikiproject to see if there is a preferred way of determining the title in that project?Etron81 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:ALBUM has the basic principles. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at that, but it doesn't seem to speak much to the current issue of the different spine/front cover titles Etron81 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to a gift card from a relative, I've picked up the other New Series soundtracks that I didn't have. Here's how the titles break down:

So comparing them all, I think we should go for the front cover titles - which means the only issue is the Series 5 one - I propose "Doctor Who - Series 5 (soundtrack)" Etron81 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd personally go for "Doctor Who: Series 5 (soundtrack)", with an element of consistency between the other five. The terms "Original (Television) Soundtrack" don't tend to be used in article titles: the common name doesn't tend to be "the X Original Television Soundtrack", but "the X soundtrack". Colons should also be used instead of dashes, because dashes look messy in article titles. Sceptre (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * sounds reasonable to me! Etron81 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Image deletion precedent attempt under way
Just FYI you might want to check which is attempting to get the infobox image for A Christmas Carol deleted. If it is deleted, presumably any remaining episode screen captures (regardless of context) will follow as the anti-image cabal finds a new avenue to turn Wikipedia into an all-text website. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Adventures
I'm amazed to find that the Sarah Jane Adventures serials have been given individual articles. Are they really notable enough? Less than a million viewers per episode, children's time slot, aired only in the UK. Other Sci-fi series such as Blake's 7 regularly achieved close to 10 million and yet does not have any episode pages, and I'm sure they were transmitted in many countries as well. I'm not suggesting these should be deleted since a lot of work has gone into them, but can anyone explain their notability? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not true that they aired only in the UK: see The Sarah Jane Adventures. But for the larger point, I'd say that the main reason that The Sarah Jane Adventures has episode articles and Blake's 7 doesn't is WP:RECENTISM.  Since multiple Blake's 7 episode guides have been published, I'd wager that it would be possible to create properly sourced episode articles for those episodes, if one were so motivated.


 * That's not to say that the SJA episode articles establish their notability very well at the moment; to do so, they should include information on production and reviews, both of which could be obtained from Doctor Who Magazine, SFX and the like. If someone were to nominate one or all of these episode articles at AfD, I don't know whether as they currently stand they'd survive.  But I do think that it would be possible to use magazine and online sources to establish notability for those episodes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture question
As an editor who does not understand all of the ins and outs of wikipedia's requirements for pictures I am wondering if we are allowed to use the current picture in the infobox for Four to Doomsday. It quite clearly has the BBC logo in the upper corner so it must have been taken from a rebroadcast of the serial. If this okay then please disregard this but if it isn't can't it be replaced by a screen shot from the DVD? Thanks in advance for your time in responding to this. MarnetteD | Talk 19:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the source states how the image in obtained (TV screenshot, DVD, etc.), there should be no problem with the logo. (In fact, it only clarifies the source.) <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',sans-serif"> — Edokter  ( talk ) — 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks for the followup. Now if we could just get a pic for the infobox at Last of the Time Lords that didn't get deleted. MarnetteD | Talk 01:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Courtney
In the last twenty minutes or so Twitter has burst forth with suggestions that Nicholas Courtney has died; a number of blogs are copying it, and the IPs are now going for our article. WP:BLP rules effectively mean we treat him as still alive, until proven otherwise; so does anybody yet have any reliable source confirming his death? -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would certainly suggest that you request semiprotection for his page until we hear one way or the other. MarnetteD | Talk 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never requested page protection before. I hope I did it properly. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. If anything is wrong feel free to explain to the admin who looks at it that it was your first report there and ask what you should have done. MarnetteD | Talk 00:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brig/Benton/Yates Companion Status
Now - their status and discussion as to whether they are companions or not has happened at great length in the past but previous discussions fizzled out before (as far as I can see) a definitive answer was discovered. Atleast 3 sources (inevitably more) list them as being companions;- The BBC website companion list, JNTs Companion Book and the Howe and Stammers Companion Book. What are they to be listed as across the project? --Connorthomha (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not like the idea of adding these three as companions. It would cause inumberable issues in terms of which episode they are "companions" in, especially with the brig. Looking here http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/companions/, they may be on a list defined as "companions", but they are described in the text as "helpers", "friends" and "associates", whereas the others are called "companions" or "travellers". In their sub-pages, they are "associated with the Doctor between" rather than "travelled with the Doctor between", and also described as "irregular". There is a clear distinction. Also we do not use this as a definitive list; note Sara Kingdom's absence. HOWEVER, I have one stumbling block. The Brig is listed as a companion in The Five Doctors. This is undeniably correct in this episode. So, I propose it is best to put the brig on the bottom of the second doctor's companion list (with footnote), for the five doctors, and leave benton and yates out. Potentially a small line under the Third Doctor's list could mention that these three are sometimes considered companions, like on their character pages. U-Mos (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These three were never considered companions at the time (c.f. The Making of Dr Who (1976)). It doesn't really make sense to retrofit them as such now, apart from possible individual exceptions as noted above. Certainly, Benton and Yates were never companions. Metebelis (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, The Brig was definitley a companion in the Five Doctors, there's no doubt about that and I don't have any objections to U-Mos' suggestion, however, you do say it says "Associated with" over "Travelled with" for the three of them. Just to put on record that it also says associated with for Jo Grant and Sarah Jane Smith (Whom are unarguably granted companion status)--Connorthomha (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Had a look at the changes (eventually) today and have made a few realted tweaks at Companion (Doctor Who), namely listing Susan, Sarah Jane and Romana similarly as companions for the five doctors (can't be true for the brig and not the others), and also (more majorly) putting brig/benton/yates in a "disputed" table under the third doctor's section, allowing for the sources for them as companions to be noted and their appearance to be listed. I believe this is the best solution. U-Mos (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, here's a wrench to throw in the works: How is Liz Shaw a companion then? She didn't travel with the Doctor, but worked with him during his exile. If the Brigadier, who was in all of Liz's episodes, is disputed, then shouldn't she be disputed as well?71.170.91.125 (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any attempt to retrospectively 'define' a companion, e.g. those who travelled with the Doctor, normally fails logic at some point. As I suggested above, the comtemporary sources were in no doubt who was the companion--the companion was the person assigned as the companion--and we should really follow suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metebelis (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Liz poses much a problem here, she appears regularly in season 7 (where the brig does not thereafter) and is recognised consistently as filling the companion role despite never travelling in the TARDIS. U-Mos (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To many people, "Doctor Who's Companion" and "Doctor Who's Assistant" are synonymous, and Liz is explicitly described as the Doctor's assistant in several episodes. Jo Grant was similarly described as his assistant the following season. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding sourcing
Hello to the members of the project. A conversation regarding sourcing for inclusion of release dates for the DVD's has begun here Talk:List of Doctor Who DVD releases. Any input that you wish to add will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who actors template
There is a discussion about Doctor Who actors at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 5. -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

River's chronology template
Hello. I had a change of heart and nominated Template:River Song chronology for deletion, despite having created it myself. Feel free to discuss. U-Mos (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-notability: Before and After Books in Novelisation Sections
Out of curiosity, is everyone in agreement to do away with the Before and After Books listed in most Doctor Who novelisation sections? If so, I could pitch in and edit them out.--DrWho42 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If there was a concensus - and there doesn't seem to be any reaction at the moment - one thing to do would be to edit/blank the code in the template thereby removing all appearances of the Before and Next books at a stroke, and then the individual articles addressed at leisure. Though that might also be considered a underhand way of doing it as the template edit would not show up as an article edit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I did not see this earlier. I have been WP:BOLD in removing them for the following reasons.
 * IMO the order they were published in just isn't notable. Target published them in a random order with no real plan at the beginning and, after they started selling, they rushed the remaining ones out to take advantage of their popularity.
 * The listing of them has a slight (very slight I admit) WP:EGG problem as the links don't go to articles about the books, they go to articles about the shows.
 * For readers there is a natural desire to read about the Doctor Who serial that aired before or after the article that they are reading. There is little reason to go from one serial to another that are separated by years.
 * For any reader that is interested in the order that they were published the have the List of Doctor Who novelisations article to go to and this article is linked in each of the book infoboxes.
 * Now I did initiate this on my own. If the consensus is that they should be restore I will certainly go back and undo my work. I also appreciate GraemeLeggett's suggestion that we remove the code from the books template. Should we agree to remove them that would be quicker than editing each page individually. Thanks for your time in the posts already made and for those that are to come. MarnetteD | Talk 14:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm for blanking the Before/After Books. Honestly, I'm pretty sure I added the Before and After Books for the Novelisation sections but I won't mind the omission since the same info is on List of Doctor Who novelisations.--DrWho42 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't blanking the code in Template:Doctor Who book affect the non-novelisation series books as well? I.e. the Virgin New Adventures or Eighth Doctor Adventures?--DrWho42 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. If that is the case then we should continue removing them manually. I suggest that we leave this conversation open until May 3rd and then see if there is a consensus one way or the other and proceed from there. MarnetteD | Talk 19:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Aborted regenerations are regeneration stories?
Problem. Edit warring threatens to break out at Template:Regeneration stories concerning the latest episode "The Impossible Astronaut", where the Doctor briefly began to regenerate before being shot dead. It's gone back and forth a few times, and I think needs a discussion. For my part I'm not too sure about it, but would lean towards leaving it off the template as the Doctor is killed before he regenerates, and the crux of the story is his death rather than his regeneration.

Additionally, and this I strongly disagree with, The Stolen Earth and Journey's End (Doctor Who) were also recently removed as the Doctor does not regenerate in these either. I oppose this, as regeneration (and the creation of a "second" Tenth Doctor) is a very significant plot point in these episodes and the criteria of being a "regeneration story" is therefore met. As their inclusion has been almost unopposed for nearly three years, I have reinstated them while this discussion is in process. U-Mos (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree -- the creation of 10.5 should make TSE/JE count as a regeneration story. TIA is iffy at the moment, I think -- we still don't know the full implications of what we saw.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but I suspect I'll lose the argument. Neither episode included a real regeneration. Ratemonth (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Regeneration stories" does not mean "The Doctor regenerated" but "Regeneration of a Time Lord is a major plot element". That's why The Christmas Invasion for example is listed although it does not include a "real" regeneration. Plus, if we started to decide what a "real" regeneration is, we would quickly move into OR-territory. There is still ambiguity about whether the regeneration in TSE/JE cost the Doctor one of his regenerations. On the other hand, TIA does not feature any regeneration at all, merely the start of it. We should at least wait for the next episode before discussing it in earnest. Regards  So Why  19:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This scene has been created because Moffat wanted to show that the Time Lords can die and a regeneration can fail. The whole point for Moffat is to explore the failure of a regeneration. He explains that in Doctor Who Confidential. So this is a very important contribution in the Regeneration canon. And by the way, the next episode Day of the Moon is also a regeneration since the little girl in the spacesuit regenerates. 195.169.141.54 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. Couldn't have waited a week to say that, could you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument makes sense, he does say that on Confidential and it's afaik the first time this has been explored. As for DotM, we don't know that, since the episode has not aired yet. Regards  So Why  08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm now thinking it might be best to put this in the "See also" section. It's akin to a minor appearance of a monster, which is what makes it tricky. U-Mos (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:River_Song_timeline.jpg
I noticed that File:River_Song_timeline.jpg was added to River Song and removed by an IP as WP:OR afterwards. I understand why this looks like OR but is it really? It organizes information from various episodes into a diagram but I'm unsure whether it really advances a position that the episodes do not. As such, I wanted to request some input here. Imho, if it's not OR, it would be a great addition to the article. Regards  So Why  17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, it lumps all the unknown visits into one particular place on the timeline, which probably isn't valid. For another, there's some spoilerish speculation which would invalidate part of it. So, I'd say until we can firmly nail down everything that occurred, and what the order was, we should leave it out of there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Related discussion from about four months ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 23, albeit for a navbox, not a graphic. The general idea's the same though: an awful lot of unsourced WP:OR. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, TIA does mention a lot of that info, so it's not really that much OR. With the exception of Sarek's concerns, all the info in that image seems to be sourced directly to what the various episodes she appears in. Regards  So Why  19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel like Weeping myself...
Can I drag some eyes over to Talk:Weeping Angels to comment in an RfC regarding a dispute? Ta. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 19:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Move Weeping Angels to Weeping Angel
I'm trying to move the article Weeping Angels to Weeping Angel however wont allow me due to redirect already existing. Any chance that someone could please fix this and also tell me how in future I would be able to move an article to where a redirect already exists? --Victory93 (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That might require a discussion. U-Mos (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It will certainly need a administrator to make the move. And best to gain concensus for the move first if its liable to be debatable whether a move is necessary/desirable lest another editor just moves it back. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having said that, you're damn right that it should be at Weeping Angel. Start the discussion, you've got my support. U-Mos (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

An existing redirect at the desired target doesn't in itself prevent a move by a non-admin... it's the fact that the redirect has more than one line of history - the one permitted line being the creation of the redirect, see WP:MOR. Whilst you can request an admin to carry out such moves by means of a, that's only for uncontroversial moves, i.e. those that don't require discussion. Here, it could be controversial, so the way to go is definitely WP:REQMOVE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Production codes
Are we ever going to know the production codes for A Christmas Carol and the remainder of series 6? And if not, what do we do? I'd also like to put the comic relief mini-episodes into Template:Eleventhdoctorcompanions but can't as there is no code to refer to them by ("CIN" is used for Ten + Rose's first appearance together at Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions). U-Mos (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest we refer to them as "S/T" or another abbreviation in the template for now until we know them. Regards  So Why  15:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On a side note, we should have a consistent way to list episodes in those templates: Template:Firstdoctorcompanions, Template:Seconddoctorcompanions, Template:Thirddoctorcompanions, Template:Fifthdoctorcompanions, Template:Sixthdoctorcompanions, Template:Seventhdoctorcompanions and Template:Ninthdoctorcompanions list every single episode while Template:Fourthdoctorcompanions, Template:SeventhdoctorNAcompanions and Template:Tenthdoctorcompanions only list a range of episodes where the companion did not change. Regards  So Why  15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, I will implement it on the template. But what do we do on List of Doctor Who serials, especially with A Christmas Carol where it looks unlikely we will get an offical production code to cite? As for the consistency, the range of episodes are used in cases where there are too many episodes to list in a single line (although Ten's template had to move into two rows anyway, his template would be a ridiculous size is every episode was linked separately). U-Mos (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

HHGTTG identification
Hi, I know it's not quite the right project, but I was wondering if anybody could help with a bit of identification? I'm currently trying to get The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) back up to scratch for a TFA appearance on 25 May ("Towel Day") - I was wondering if anybody would be able to help identify the actors/production staff in this picture. Thanks. Bob talk 12:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moving from left to right as we look at it I'm not sure about the first three but the next three - in order - are Douglas Adams, Mark Wing Davey and Simon Jones. I would guess that Geoffrey McGivern and Peter Jones are also there but I don't know their faces well enough to hazard a guess as to which is which. I'm pretty confident as to my id'ing but if I'm wrong others will correct me. If I have a chance later today I'll dig into the extras on the TV version DVD set and see if they have anything that might help. MarnetteD | Talk 14:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 could be Stephen Moore and 3 might just be Geoffrey McGivern, but it's hard to find old photos online for an accurate comparison. None of them are Peter Jones, David Tate, Richard Vernon or Martin Benson...and where's Susan Sheridan? Perhaps her absence is a clue to which scene they were doing? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post Totnesmartin. Based on this pic I think you are right about McGivern being number three. This website  has a ton of pictures of Stephen Moore. While #2's hairstyle is one that Moore has sported he is a taller actor and would be closer in height to Adams and Wing-Davey. Also, according to most sources, most of Moore's performance was recorded separate, so they could doctor the voice, from the main cast. The earliest thing that I have in my DVD collection with Moore is Three Men in a Boat (with Michael Palin and Tim Curry) from 1975 and he is more robust then the man in the pic. You are also right about R Vernon as he was playing old men even when he was young as his performances in the 1973 eps of Upstairs, Downstairs will attest. As you surmise the reason that Sheridan is missing is this could be an ep that she wasn't in. Another problem is the "Most likely taken in March 1978" as the possible date. The first series was completed in Feb of 78 and post production was finished Mar 3rd. So at the very least the month is wrong. One other name to consider if this is a pic from the recording for the first ep (which if memory serves Sheridan wasn't in) David Gooderson played "the Barman" but I just don't know if he could be 1 or 2. One thing for Bob Castle - the only person in the pic that we know for sure as being dead (until we can identify 1 and 2 anyway) is Adams so you may want to alter the description in your permission. I don't know if accuracy there is vital so if this is not important don't worry about it. This is a fun research project I hope that others can find the last two names for us. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The good news: This hungarian website has some good photos for reference: First main photo: L-R Douglas Adams, Geoffrey Perkins, David Tate, Geoffrey McGivern, Mark Wing-Davey, Simon Jones and és Alan Ford (Roosta).
 * The bad news: Quite a lot of what we're doing here probably fails WP:OR. bugger. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Great find. The larger version of the pic in question combined with the one of everyone sitting on the floor makes things much easier This would make 1 David Tate (his mustache shows up better in the bigger pic) and 2 Alan Ford (he doesn't have his glasses on in the pic that Bob found.) I had the same thought about the OR problem. Oh well. I also love that the website is called chelloveck as it used in the NADSAT language from A Clockwork Orange. Again kudos on the research T. MarnetteD | Talk 16:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help here, the Hungarian website was a good find! I went for David Tate, Alan Ford, Geoffrey McGivern, Douglas Adams, Mark Wing-Davey, Simon Jones in the end. I guess it's sortof OR, but better than having the wrong names. If that's Alan Ford there, I assume it must be the recording of the "Christmas episode" (Fit the Seventh), which also fits with David Tate's presence there, and Susan Sheridan's absence. With that in mind, I've slightly updated the rationale. Thanks again! Bob talk 23:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Help with a navbox
Hello to the members of the project. Something seems to have gone awry with this navbox

Doctor Who (season 20)

As you can see it shows the "hide" command even though there is nothing to hide and when you try to edit it it goes to a template that has a different title then that of the other season navboxes. I am guessing that something got moved or was deleted but that is just speculation. I fear that if I try to fix it I might make things worse so I am posting this here so that those of you who are better versed in working with these can get it working properly again. Thanks ahead of time to anyone that straighten this out. MarnetteD | Talk 15:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone erased the titles, that's all. I've undid that, and it seems like it's working OK now. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I was worried that their might be a problem with the template page when it was named "20th Anniversary special" but I see that you've fixed that too. Glad it was something simple. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sarah Jane's Alien Files
I've been working though the backlog over at WP:DW/A, and I've almost finished, but for Sarah Jane's Alien Files. The importance rating depends on whether it counts as a series, or just a series accompaniment. Doctor Who, Torchwood, The Sarah Jane Adventures, K-9 (TV series) and K-9 and Company are all Top importance because they are television series, but Doctor Who Confidential and Torchwood Declassified are only High importance and Mid importance respectively, as they are series accompaniments. Now, Sarah Jane's Alien Files is clearly designed as more of an accompaniment, but it is set in-universe and features the characters and something resembling a storyline. Is it as much of a series as, say, K-9 and Company, or is it only Mid importance, along with Torchwood Declassified? - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a week and you may not need an answer - its been PRODded. But my guess is its mid to low. I don't know if you've seen it, but it's little more than a reuse of episode clips stitched together. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who imgs
I currently have a problem with DW episodes images and deciding which make the cut. Please explain me which images would make the cut and why ie superior graphics, plot twist, etc.. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 22:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are free to use public domain images and images that are original to you, that is "free" images. Non-free images, such as copyrighted photos or screen captures, must have a justifiable fair-use rationale.  One example, you can use a free image to decorate an infobox, but you cannot use a non-free image for decoration because that's not a justifiable fair-use rationale. DonQuixote (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So which image would make the cut? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 23:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Vincent and the Doctor and Partners in Crime. DonQuixote (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about File:DoctorWhoTheLodgerUpstairs.jpg? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, so don't take my word for it, but that picture is probably ok since it's the first appearance of that particular set which would take 1000+ words to describe. DonQuixote (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the "second tardis" console? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's already pictures of that in TARDIS. DonQuixote (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No there isn't. Just looked. Link? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooops, misread that as "secondary"...sure, I guess the "second TARDIS" might be ok...but I'm not an expert. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note, who is? -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the secondary CONSOLE room, one which never appeared before. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The secondary console room is just an archived previous console room...which has a picture at TARDIS. DonQuixote (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. For one thing its darker. See http://i54.tinypic.com/a421iv.png for screengrab, albit bad one. -- Tyw7   (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The secondary console room is an archived version of the the previous main console room. In the episode it was shown under darker lighting."  There, don't need a picture for that. DonQuixote (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No where in the episode does it imply that. I just presumed its a second console room. -- Tyw7   (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At about 31:07...Idris: "I archived them." DonQuixote (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Must have missed it! -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewatched ep and it mentions she archieves ALL old control room and have about 30 of em. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, SevenMgone (can't spell exact name) suggest we have a screenshot of the TARDIS "entering" a woman. Here's the link the vid of the scene: http://tinypic.com/r/34efdyt/7 -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tyw7, you started this thread Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents at AN/I eariler today. When you did not get the outcome that you wished for there you came here. You will want to proceed carefully as this can be construed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and guidelines and nowhere is this more than the case than with adding images to articles. I would suggest you proceed slowly and listen to what other editors are telling you. There is a great deal of other kinds of editing that you can do here that does not involve adding images to articles. MarnetteD | Talk 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not forum shopping. Just wanted to get an idea of what the DW guys think. Because I wanted to see if such image would constitute "significant" or what "events" in the plot line would be "significant" -- Tyw7   (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote. I didn't say that you were FS I said that what you are doing could be "construed" as FS. Considering the fact that there is now a topic ban discussion occurring at the AN/I thread I can only suggest, again, that you proceed with caution. MarnetteD | Talk 00:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to procede with caution... Trying to find out the "edge" of the eggshell where not to work. -- Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! •  Contributions ) 01:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

TARDIS as companion
Following the events and revelations in The Doctor's Wife, I think a very strong case can now be made for the TARDIS to be canonically considered a companion. Certainly almost all of the reviews I've seen are referring to her as such now (along with lots of people now referring to the Doctor's TARDIS by the name he gives her unambiguously (and canonically) in the episode, "Sexy"). I'll let the debate over the use of the name rage elsewhere, but I think consideration should be made to reevaluating and revising accordingly to reflect the TARDIS as being a companion. The series of course didn't just decide to make her sentient - that fact dates back to 1964. And it's doubtful in the extreme that the events of the episode will be forgotten. Anyway, just food for thought. 68.146.78.43 (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does your "very strong case" include any reliable sources identifying the TARDIS as a companion? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► hemicycle ─╢ 19:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may also want to look at WP:RECENTISM. You are asking to change 100's if not 1000's of articles over the events of one episode that aired two days ago. Lets wait and see how things play out over the next couple of seasons and see what direction Moffat is taking things. If WikiP had existed in 1966 we would have referred to the change in Doctors as "rejuvenation" not "regeneration" and, no doubt edit wars would have occurred in 1974 when Planet of the Spiders first use the term we all know so well now. As Treasury Tag points out we should wait until RS's establish things. As to the name different Doctors have used different names and to claim that the 11th's use of sexy is a reason to use that name alone is just fancruft run wild. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We list companions in navboxes in terms of the actors who play them. Even if the TARDIS is a "companion" (big if, the term being applied loosely where referring to the TARDIS), there is no one to list as playing it for obvious reasons. K-9 is not listed as a companion in Destiny of the Daleks, where he does not speak, for instance. U-Mos (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote no, for reasons mentioned above. Metebelis (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please could I ask for some input at Talk:Fourth Doctor where there is an ongoing dispute about whether or not including multiple identical links goes against the spirit of WP:REPEATLINK or not. Seriously. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► pikuach nefesh ─╢ 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up requested
I've just noticed the article List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films has had multiple stories listed on here however without reliable sources. If possible could we have this cleaned up and if possible if we can expand on any of these stories in the article? --Victory93 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Season 6B at AfD
Just to let everyone know, the Season 6B article is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Season 6B. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR policy exemptions
Just a note to alert people to a proposal for a new 3RR exemption that I've formulated: Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. This came about based on editing patterns I've noticed on Doctor Who articles so I thought it would be helpful to post a memorandum here! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 10:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GAs
Hi, I've noticed there are several GA articles not listed on the project page. I was going to add them but I was wondering if there was a specific order they were in, as they are not alphabetic. Thanks, Glimmer721  <sup style="color:blue;">talk  16:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't fathom any order in that list at all! Might well be worth alphabetising them unless anyone can explain the pattern... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Speaker ─╢ 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking they were by order of when they passed, but that's kind of hard to keep up. Perhaps we should put the date of when they passed? I would prefer alphabetizing myself. Also, I've removed Doctorin' the Tardis because it was delisted almost 2 years ago. Glimmer721  <sup style="color:blue;">talk

Earth Stories?
Hi I was browsing Category:Doctor Who stories set on Earth and I noticed several stories that were not set on earth. These may be disputed however as they came from Series One of the revised show, which notoriously set all of it's stories near earth. Having said that I'm pretty sure The End of the World, The Long Game and Bad Wolf are not set on Earth just near it. Has this been discussed yet? Can I remove these offending episodes from said category. Deathawk (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say remove them. A spacestation orbiting earth is not earth. U-Mos (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * End of the World has a two-minute sequence at the end set on Earth itself, but otherwise they're all spacestations. I suppose the only argument for keeping them there would be that the events depicted affect Earth more than any other planet, but that doesn't seem to be what the category's intended for. I would remove them. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andrew Beech
An AfD that may be of interest to this project. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD
I'm starting to get sick of User:MarnetteD. Wikipedia is supposed to be able to hold more information than a paper encyc but he just deletes information willy-nilly calling it "fancruft" or "trainspotting". He also is beginning to act as if he has the final say on Doctor Who on Wikipedia, completely disregarding WP:OWN. He needs to be taken in hand. Paul Austin (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not looked into MarnetteD's recent edits on the project before making this comment, but if you do feel there is a problem Wikiquette alerts may be the best place to resolve it. U-Mos (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The things in question have probably been deleted because they are fancrufty and trainspotting. If you can't solidly support the items in question, then it's probably not WP:OWN. DonQuixote (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (tangentially related comment) Will people please stop using the word "trainspotting" like it means "trivial information"? That's a stereotype with no basis in reality. If that's what "trainspotting" means, why is there so little content of this type in railway-related articles? Why does WP:TRAINS have so many FAs and GAs? Why does train spotting make no mention of it (and is in fact subsumed within a larger article on the actual topic it's part of)? Why is Trainspotting a redlink with no pages linking to it? I could go on.
 * (directly related comment) MarnetteD appears to have been quite within his/her rights to remove such information. On every occassion I've seen this occur, the relevant comment was unsourced and failed to explain its importance to the episode it was listed under. That's not to say that such content couldn't have been sourced (some of the info removed from Resurrection of the Daleks is stated on the BBC's episode guide for example), but WP:V is a policy, so the removals were justified. Nor do such edits come under WP:OWN as far as I can tell. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anybody actually communicated with MarnetteD directly (other than me, that is)? If not, WP:WQA is definitely not the way to go, per WP:DISPUTE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No I haven't been contacted so here what is occurring. I am going through the classic serial articles trying to bring uniformity to their layout. While doing that I am also culling the kind of info that IMO is not encyclopedic. Look I am as much an "anorak" (UK) and "geek" (US) about this series and others as anyone. I like making connections between things that have happened over the years too. Wikipedia has set standards that do not allow these kinds of items in its articles. Among the many reasons for removal are the policies of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:TRIVIA. Lack of sourcing is another problem. Unless the producers of a given story state that they are using an item like "fast aging of the Dr" (for example) as a direct reference to an earlier story then it is just a coincidence that it occurred in three different tales (two in the classic series and one in the new.) As to the term used I saw another editor using the term trainspotting and was amused by it and adopted it. That can easily be changed if necessary. Fancruft, original research whatever you prefer is fine with me. Per WP:BOLD all editors here are allowed to add or remove info from articles as they wish. That does not mean that they are gone forever. If WP:RSs and WP:NOTABILITY can be established then great. One other thing to be aware of there are numerous places on the web where the kind of info in question can flourish. There are fansites and blogs beyond number out there. I would hope that the TARDIS wikia would except all of these items and more. Lastly, WikiP operates by consensus. If such occurs to restore any items removed that is fine with me. MarnetteD | Talk 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It might help if we had some diffs;
 * From The Leisure Hive diff
 * From The Two Doctors diff
 * From The Crusade diff
 * From The Twin Dilemma diff
 * From the Silver Nemesis diff
 * These are edits of MarnetteD's labelled as "trainspotting" and all seem justifiable as the removal of trivial information. For example, from The Twin Dilemma, "Its release completed an entire run of stories from a single Doctor for the first time in the classic-series DVD range (excepting the Eighth Doctor's, which was completed immediately upon the release of the 1996 telefilm)". That to me doesn't really enhance our understanding of the article subject, which should be the aim of adding any information to an article. WikiuserNI (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

- Book of Ecclesiastes, 1:9


 * And furthermore, those edits actually do remove OR. For example, the Twin Dilemma example hinges on the TV movie "not counting". And the Silver Nemesis example only works if you define it as "living Cyberman in an antagonist role", as the first appearance of a Cyberman in the new series was actually in "Dalek". Sceptre (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the diffs linked to above, I think it's a great shame that MarnetteD can be undertaking such good clean-up work on a large scale and be accused of WP:OWN and other things for it. I fully support his work. (And I had assumed from the OP's message that he'd been put out by what had been perceived as less-than-civil communication from MarnetteD, which turns out not to be the case. In future, attempt to take issues up with the editor before going over their head.) U-Mos (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank everyone who responded to the OP. You all took time away from your normal editing to examine this and I appreciate that time and your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 15:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Season 6B
Considering Season 6B survived a deletion discussion, I've taken the initiative and had a clean-up, removing all OR and synthesis. But it's still not great. The fact is I have no references. Has DWM or any other magazine ever talked about season 6B? Has it been posed to any of the prod staff in Q&A sessions? Anything like that would be brilliant. I just hope someone knows where to look. U-Mos (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Season 6b is from The Discontinuity Guide by Cornell, Day and Topping. DonQuixote (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * DWM probably mentioned it in reviews of, or with information about, the BBC Past Doctor novels Players or World Game, as these utilise the idea.Number36 (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * World Game is mentioned in issue 362 (preview) and reviewed in issue 364. The only thing that was said is "World Games also allows Dicks to play with one of his favourite fan theories, the idea tha, following his trial by the Time Lords, the Second Doctor became a reluctang agent of the Gallifreyan version of the CIA." (DWM 364 p62) DonQuixote (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Players is reviewed in issue 278, but Season 6b isn't mentioned per se. DonQuixote (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a brief mention in this book during the deletion discussion. Not much detail there, but at least it's reliable and independent. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, just remembered, DWM might have mentioned season 6b in the 2nd Doctor retrospective they had some time back (along with all the other Doctors). Got to remember to look it up. DonQuixote (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A minor link dilemma
In my article cleanup journey mentioned above I have come across a link conundrum that I want to bring to your attention. If you will look at this page List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens you will notice that there are numerous entries which only have a Main article link back to the story(ies) that they were featured in. This in essence creates a circular (semicircular?) link in the same way that a redirect does. For example a reader clicking on this link Anethans is simply given a link to go back to The Horns of Nimon article that they were already reading. Since I have never had this list article on my watchlist I can only guess as to how that situation came about but it does bring up some questions that we should get some consensus on as to how to proceed. I know that the editors who worked on these lists put in a lot of time and effort so if the decision is to leave them as they are that is fine with me.
 * 1) Should the items that only have the Main article link be unlinked in the article about the serial? As I said above I think that they meet the definition of item five in WP:OVERLINK
 * 2) Should these same items even be in the list article? The only other info in the list article is the "Doctor Who race" infoboxes that are in a column on the right side of the article. These infoboxes don't have much info in them and when there are several of them they get pushed down the so that they aren't always next to the corresponding entry on the list.

I also know that there are several other Dr Who list articles and this same situation probably applies to them. Thus, any changes will be a fair sized editing project so maybe it could be part of a to do list.

Thanks ahead of time for any responses and other ideas that you can suggest. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the intention was to link the List entries to the episodes/serials whilst not linking them in the articles for the episodes/serials (ie back to the List). As for the infoboxes, they used to have pictures, which was probably the point (decoration), and are probably not needed anymore. DonQuixote (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. That makes sense to me. Seems like we should leave the links in the lists and remove them in the articles. I may tackle that after the current cleanup unless there is a consensus not to.I kinda guessed that they used to have pictures. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 14:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove all the infoboxes. Even with pictures, they serve no purpose, except to encourage lazy, in-universe prose.~<b style="color:purple;">Zythe</b>Talk to me! 22:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need more than a few sentences for "minor", one-episode enemies anyway. Major enemies will be notable in their own right. We should move towards a proper list style... Sceptre (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Link replacement urgently needed
I notice that, even on several of our FAs, we still link to Gallifrey One pages that were removed following the "closure" of Outpost Gallifrey. This would've been embarassing, had been on the main page (which it will be in just under 24 hours) with dead references. I've added this to the todo page:
 * 1) URGENT: Replace old Gallifrey One (linksearch) and Gallifrey News Base @ Blogspot (linksearch) with new urls.

It shouldn't be a hard job, merely tedious. Most news articles are on the Doctor Who News Page, and any that aren't can be found through the Internet Archive. Ditto for old guide links. I've made those changes on Doomsday (Doctor Who) and The Stolen Earth, and will continue to do so on the FAs and GAs I wrote as part of maintainance. Sceptre (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we absoluteley sure episodes 7 and 8 are a two-part story?
Well, are we? Could someone check the DWM souce cited at List of Doctor Who serials please? U-Mos (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, it was mentioned in multiple places that 7 and 8 will be a mid-season cliffhanger. See for example. Regards  So  Why  19:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mid-season cliffhanger" sure, not disputing it, but does that mean a two-part story? Turn Left and The Poison Sky had cliffhanger endings, remember... U-Mos (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. There is no indication that it is a two-parter, and given the different settings, characters, directors, and (lest we forget) PLOTS, they should be classed as two separate stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.166.111 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Images Missing from Sarah Jane Adventures Episode Pages
I have noticed there are a number of SJA episode pages that do not have images the list is below i will tick them off as and when they are completed.

Invasion of the Bane ✅ Eye of the Gorgon From Raxacoricofallapatorius with Love✅ Prisoner of the Judoon✅ The Mad Woman in the Attic ✅ The Eternity Trap✅ Mona Lisa's Revenge✅ The Gift✅ The Vault of Secrets✅ Death of the Doctor✅ The Empty Planet✅ Lost in Time (The Sarah Jane Adventures)✅ Goodbye, Sarah Jane Smith✅

Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)