Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 5

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 19 January 2006 and 27 February 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Doctor Who stubs
I feel I have to mention that the list of Doctor Who stubs seems to be growing every week. Is there anything we, as a group or invidually, can do to decrease this number (aside from, y'know, filling in the "Plot"s for the stories we've seen!)? NP Chilla 21:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We can stop adding stub templates to the bottom of articles :). Seriously though, high-priority stubs i.e. ones that need most information/ones on highly-important subjects should be listed in our to-do list. --Jamdav86 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've outstripped a few, including stories where I've recently added plot details. There are some Doctor Who writers (screen and print) that maybe need very little work too before they can be removed. I'm unsure about Chelonian: should print format species have their own page individually - or could it be better done reconciled with one of the bigger list pages that have been developed?--Litefoot 08.38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I spotted that same article when I was looking through the stubs. I left it alone because the Chelonians appear in more works than I'd thought, but I have my doubts that they deserve a whole article to themselves. I'd merge them into List of Doctor Who aliens. Any plot details about them belong in the article for the relevant book. --Whouk (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's probably the best thing to do with the Chelonians; as there is no way that they are important enough to warrant their own article. Indeed, some of the shorter villains (eg. Nimrod (Doctor Who)) could do with the same treatment. NP Chilla 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chelonian has gone into List of Doctor Who aliens as suggested. I've also taken the knife to a string of other articles - on writers primarily - where there either seemed a full article or there might not be much else to say.Litefoot 09.03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done. Perhaps we should all do our bit to decrease the number of stubs as we come across them... NP Chilla 16:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Back again
sorry im a bit buzy at the mo so i won't be able to do much --Madcow 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Newman
After The Beginning DVD set's come out and I can take a fair use screen grab from it to use as an illustration, I was thinking of putting this article up on peer review and thence onto FAC. Anyone have any thoughts? I know it's not as long as some featured articles, but I've had a look at some of the other featured biographical articles and I don't think it compares too badly. Any help with getting this up to a featured article status would be gratefully received, anyway. Angmering 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is now up on peer review, here, if anybody has any suggestions. No feedback yet, which I take to mean either it's of no interest to most people, or completely perfect in every way. ;-) Angmering 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

K-9 and Company
This is canon... isn't it? NP Chilla 11:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There should be a project rule - we don't discuss canonicity :-) --Whouk (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That being said, the reason why most people accept K-9 and Company is in continuity is because it links to Sarah and K-9's appearances in The Five Doctors. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus, of course, it was an "official" spin-off made by and transmitted the BBC, &agrave; la Torchwood. --Whouk (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. So, should we put it in the WikiProject's main page as one of those things that is definitely canon (in the "Canon or not canon?" part)? NP Chilla 18:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the thing, you see - some people don't think K-9 and Company is definitively canon, so that's why it wasn't included there. In the end, it still is up for grabs, even if it leans towards the canon side. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word 'races' in describing 'species'

 * ''Note: this comment was posted today to the latest archive. I'm moving it here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The word 'races' is being incorrectly used in describing alien 'species' in several examples. 'Race' is an extremely small variation between individuals of the same species (usually applied to human beings) due to limited breading because of geographical and cultural factors. I think it would be difficult to describe Rutan_Host as being the same species as a human, though if they could succesfully breed together and produce fertile offspring (the generally excepted definition of a species) we'd have some fairly interesting results. I think this needs to be changed, as more than anything, it could be seen as politcally incorrect to the extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.254.247 (talk • contribs) 08:28, January 23, 2006


 * I think what you're saying is that, for example, Davros's "Race" is "Kaled", but his "Species" is "Skaroian" (or whatever people from Skaro are called). Actually, I think I have just (unwittingly!) hit upon the snag with replacing "Race" with "Species"; though I personally don't know enough about this to make any real comments. NP Chilla 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If that were the case, then 'Squirrel' would be the name of the race (which it most definately isn't) and 'Terran' or 'Earthian' would be the species, when we know that Squirrel is quite definately the name of the species. I think there is certainly more of a case for calling them 'species' than 'races'.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick: in Genesis of the Daleks it is made quite clear that the Kaleds and Thals are the same species ("Human", "Skaroian", or whatever), whilst "Kaled" is the name of their nationality (or race). See what I mean? NP Chilla 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who Children in Need special (2005)
Can we not think of an easier/shorter name (or one that is easier to remember)? I mean, it ahs be said, this is a bit of a stretch, calling it this. The New Doctor, Regeneration Cutaway (or even Pudsey Cutaway!) would make more sense.

Oh, and in case you're wondering if I spend all of my time thinking about names... the answer is "YES!!!" (Sadly enough...) NP Chilla 16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It adequetely describes what it is. None of those titles would make more sense because they're nicknames. And, unlike the 100,000 BC issue, I think "the Children in Need special" is generally the most common way it's referred to. --Whouk (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Whouk — the current title is as close to a fan consensus as we've got at the moment. If (as I expect) this scene appears as an extra on the DVD of The Christmas Invasion, it will be interesting to see how it's titled, and we can reopen the discussion accordingly then.  But at the moment all other names are unofficial and/or tongue-in-cheek, and it would be inappropriate for us to endorse any of them.


 * However, there's no reason you couldn't, or shouldn't, create redirects to the current title at The New Doctor, Regeneration Cutaway and/or Pudsey Cutaway... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've just done that very deed. NP Chilla 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Story numbering, part 2
We last talked about this in May 2005, where the consensus was reluctantly to put the two parters as separate story numbers. A recent note on the Doctor Who Reference Guide (who are now linking to our companion profiles) shows that OG has switched to numbering the two-parters as single story numbers, as have the DWRG, who adds: "Let's hope those at Wikipedia eventually follow so the three main portals show a unified front to the fandom on this." Maybe it's time to revive this conversation. What do you think? Shall we have Aliens of London as 164a and World War Three (Doctor Who) as 164b? The BBC numbering in the production code field should remain as is, of course. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, especially if OG and the DWRG are doing it that way. It's unlikely that the BBC will ever number the old and new series together anyway, so we may as well go with the flow of fandom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For good practice, we should let this discussion run for a day or so before changing anything. If there are no serious objections by then, I'll start renumbering. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems just fine to me.--Sean|Bla ck 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes a lot of sense.--Litefoot 08:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do it! --Jamdav86 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. NP Chilla 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We should follow authorative sources to comply with the verifiability policy --TimPope 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm changing it now.--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And we're done, I think. I hit the individual episodes, the main list as well as the DVD releases list. If I made any mistakes, please clean up after my mess. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In London from February 6 to 11
Just a note: I'm going on holiday from January 27 to February 13, and will probably not have or have sporadic access to the Internet during that time, so it's as good a time as any to take a Wikibreak. I'll actually be in London (UK, not Ontario) from the 6th to the 11th, so if anyone nearby wants to touch base, e-mail me your contact details and we'll see if we can arrange something around our respective schedules. Don't break anything while I'm gone, okay? :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your holiday! We'll try not to break anything. *crash* Oh dear. Maybe if I altered... no, that's made it worse... --Jamdav86 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Images on Televised Story Pages
Spent some time this evening working out which story pages don't have an image associated with them. For the record, these are: Nightmare of Eden, The Horns of Nimon, Time-Flight, Arc of Infinity, Snakedance, Dragonfire, The Happiness Patrol, Silver Nemesis, and The Greatest Show in the Galaxy. I've spent time adding images to earlier stories. If anyone fancies filling in these few gaps I think that would be a nice addition to the project. Litefoot 22.30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have now done these - job completed :) Litefoot 07.05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who aliens
As well as Chelonian (see above in the discussion on Stubs), it strikes me that there are other examples of races/species that have been permitted their own pages when they would be better suited to a listing here. Vortisaur is a clear example. What is the general rule of thumb when deciding if a race/species deserves a page unto itself - multiple appearances, recognition amongst the "lay person"? Litefoot 20.11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that there is no official policy on this, and in the past it has been down to the induvidual editor. However, in the future, I suggest that all new aliens should be listed above, unless it becomes unwieldy, in which case it should be spun off. --Jamdav86 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually had a talk with khaosworks about this (actually, he had a talk with me about it), and I think the official policy concerning species is that if they feature in more than one episode, or are prominently featured in spin-off media, or both, then it deserves its own article; see Quarks and Shalka on my talk page. --JB Adder | Talk 01:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case I may have been too hasty moving Chelonian; but Vortisaur definitely deserves incorporation. Prominence in cross-media is debatable though - that would give Chronovores and Krotons their own articles in the future, and necessitate creating own pages for most of the species currently in the list - Foamasi, Menoptera, Zarbi. Perhaps a clearly defined list of species entitled to own pages is necessary. Whatever happens, I agree that the spinning off process does not seem that far away.Litefoot 07.53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As there was no dissension, I have now incorporated Vortisaur. Litefoot 09.38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; and, might I ask, are the Zygons important enough to warrant their own page? I mean, they only appear in spin-off material as much as, say, the Gods of Ragnarok. NP Chilla 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, let's let Zygons be Zygons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha. But you see what I mean - Jason Kane (Doctor Who), for example, is just the right size to fit on the "List of minor companions" (he said with a hungry look in his eyes...!)NP Chilla 09:03, 1 February 2006
 * But Jason wasn't a companion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit vague on the books, but he's as much a companion as Adam, isn't he? --Whouk (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I recall. He was a hanger-on with Benny, but I don't think he actually played the companion r

ole with the Doctor. He's really Benny's companion more than the Doctor's. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. IIRC he does hitch a lift with the Doctor between Death and Diplomacy and Happy Endings, but he's not really a companion of the Doctor. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally he appears in several audio dramas and is portrayed by Stephen Fewell. I think this one can be expanded quite a bit --TimPope 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay - here's an easy one - Quark (Doctor Who): one species, one appearance - as clear a case for amalgamation as any. All agreed? Litefoot 18.49, 1 February2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not the best example as the Quarks were merchandised a bit at the time, most notably being recurring villains in the TV Comic strip. Timrollpickering 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Tim: the War Machines were merchandised a lot at the time, as were the Mechanoids, because they were, of course, going to be the "Monsters to Beat the Daleks in Popularity!" I think Mr. Litefoot is right with this one, and that the giggling, annoying Quarks should be put in their place (the List of Doctor Who aliens, of course!). NP Chilla 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just a simple rule of thumb: if they appeared two times or more on TV, they get their own article. Single appearance, they go into the omnibus. I'm not sure what's happening with literary/Big Finish alien races, so I won't comment on that. 23skidoo 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that even two isn't a slightly too low a threshold. Aggedor, for example, appears in two stories, but does he really warrant an article? And two significant appearances, or just two appearances - as sometimes monsters make brief appearances in subsequent stories. The likely size of the article is perhaps a better (if less specific) guide. (By the way, you don't appear to be logged in, Nick...) --Whouk (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The real problem seems to be canonicity/importance of spin off media. I suggest again, perhaps a clearly defined list of species entitled to own pages is necessary, drawn up by the gang. In the meantime I've continued to add a few articles. Just tidied up Monarch and I'm almost loathe to mention it but is there a clear dividing line between a Villain and a Species for categorisation? I would expect Sutekh to be categorised as a villain, perhaps because no other Osirians were seen on screen, but what makes Monarch and his relationship with the Urbankans so different to Broton and his association with the Zygons? That's another one to ponder... Litefoot 11.26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The obvious (and unfortunately inappropriate) answer is that Terror of the Zygons is rather wonderful, whereas Four to Doomsday is mostly rubbish (despite the presence of Stratford Johns). Of course, that's POV so we can't say that.  On the whole, I think that Whouk is on the right track when he says we should use length of article as our yardstick, rather than trying to establish an arbitrary criterion based on number of appearances.  After all, that's the guideline suggested by pages like How to break up a page.


 * I agree with the esteemed professor Litefoot that the villain/species distinction is less than clear. We should also consider what to do about something like the giant maggots, which are neither aliens nor villains, b perhaps ought to have a mention somewhere besides The Green Death — after all, "the one with the maggots" is a British cultural touchstone, isn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the original "List of Doctor Who monsters" was more accurate than we at first thought... (PS: I've deleted the comment made this morning in my name, because someone hijacked my identity and, as Whouk said, did not log in as me. Thanks to Whouk for looking out for me.) NP Chilla 16:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I preferred monsters, but then I started it out at that title ... ;-) --TimPope 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Monsters would seem more appropriate - after all Primords, which are listed, are not aliens at all but "modified" humans but are most clearly monsters. Litefoot 22.59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my reaction when the original move happened. That debate is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 3. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the article should be titled List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. That would allow both Primords and Giant Maggots (monsters, but not aliens) and the Draconians and the Moxx of Balhoon (aliens but not monsters) to be included. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see that working. --TimPope 17:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. We could perhaps call it "List of Doctor Who aliens and monsters", for the sake of alphabetical order (but then, I am just an old nit-picker). NP Chilla 19:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose I preferred "monsters and aliens" because the phrase "Doctor Who monsters" has some historical weight, and although most of the entries in the list could be described as both, most are probably better considered as "monsters" than "aliens". But I don't feel strongly about the order.  Let's see if we can get a consensus on the article's talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm bringing in Quarks, as there were more people for merger than against. Litefoot 16.39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Super, well done - but who shall be our next victim? Erm,sorry -- candidate for deletion? The Zygons? NP Chilla 14:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Threshold
Needs cleanup, and I've never heard of it (but then I don't read the comic strips.)--TimPope 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone got himself a copy of the End Game trade paperback collecting the Eighth Doctor Threshold scripts and cobbled it together. I can clean it up, but technically I'm still on wikibreak. If it hasn't been done by the time I get back, I'll do it. I'll move it to Threshold (Doctor Who) first. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

IMDb episode links
Now that IMDb has full episode support (although the data isn't fully migrated yet), I think it would be good to include links to IMDb on Wikipedia's episode pages. Just the usual:



A standard ordering in the links should be decided: either above or below the BBC cast/crew page. --KJBracey 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. (Looks like the IMDb pages need a bit of correction as to which regulars are in which eps.) &mdash;Whouk (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright: Image:Sidearm.jpg
Right, we have a problem (or, more specifically, I have a problem, since I uploaded the image). This has been tagged for deletion. I have to supply a copyright tag (plus info) fitting of this image. It's from the Technical Guide, but what tag should I add? --JB Adder | Talk 13:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sydney Newman (again)
This is now up as a featured article candidate here. Hopefully it can become the project's fifth featured article, although of course Doctor Who is only a small part of it &mdash; "minutes in my life of years", as the man himself once said. Angmering 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Satan Pit - Series 2, Episode 9
That's right, ladies and gentlemen: The Satan Pit will be the second part of the story, and part one is the unnamed one. Check Doctor Who Magazine #366 for more details. (PS: I've just changed the List of Doctor Who serials and Satan Pit pages for this info, so never say I don't do anything for you!) NP Chilla 18:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Plots for Doctors 3 and 6
It's something of a historic day for the individual story pages in the Doctor Who project. Earlier today participants including NP Chilla) completed plot summaries for the three outstanding Sixth Doctor stories, Attack of the Cybermen, The Mark of the Rani and Timelash. I can now report I've filled the last Pertwee gap with a plot summary for Invasion of the Dinosaurs. So that's two Doctors completed in one day! Looking back to the classic series there are still around fifty stories without original plot summaries, so plenty of work still to do - listed most concisely in the list of Doctor Who stubs - and this includes some of the classics like The Celestial Toymaker, The Web of Fear, The Talons of Weng-Chiang, City of Death and Time-Flight (sic). But I think the project took a bit of a step forward today. Just thought I'd mention it, and hopefully not too arrogantly. Litefoot 22.49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job, folks. &lt;applause&gt; &mdash;Whouk (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is something we should all be proud of. Let's build on this achievement and sort out the remaining stubs (dibs on City of Death!!). And yes, I'm aware that the preceding sentence sounded like something a cheerleader would say... if she was drunk and had roughly three brain cells to rub together. NP Chilla 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not so good news: the plots of Timelash and The Mark of the Rani have been reverted because they were pinched from Outpost Gallifrey. So the heading of this article and the general uplifted spirit are a bit bruised - though neither NP Chilla nor I pinched our words from elsewhere. Am pressing on though, and doing Marco Polo as I write... Litefoot 12.29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are joking. Even now, in this day and age, people still lazily copy-and-paste articles from elsewhere and call it copyright-free? I am appalled; truly, I am.
 * Well, enough of the melodramatics: back to work, eh? NP Chilla 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen Professor Litefoot's Marco Polo episode plot-thing; and I have to say it's magnificent. Considering that not a second of footage exists from this story, it is even more splendid than it first appears. If anyone else fancies doing a plot overview for a story, take this one as an example of what it should look like. NP Chilla 20:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's very kind - Marco Polo is an excellent story to summarise, with a strong narrative and not too many characters, so there's some depth and complexity. I've just had a stab at The Mark of the Rani but it's not one of my better efforts. Some of the weaknesses of the plot can't be avoided, and are very apparent when you're trying to summarise. On which note, perhaps someone else had better do Timelash and finish of the Sixth Doctor era (again). Any takers? Litefoot 22.33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Timelash is quite a hard one; I have never actually seen it, and I am absolutely bewildered by the plots in Outpost Gallifrey, drwho-online et al. (If you thought The Mark of the Rani makes no sense, you've never heard of this!) If anyone can rise to the occasion and do this, I think I can say we would all be both impressed and grateful. NP Chilla 20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That might involve watching Timelash though. Tim | meep in my general direction 22:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I watched Time-Flight recently, and lived to tell the tail, so I have faith that you can do Timelash. Phil Sandifer 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How about living to write the Plot summary then - should actually be quite straight forward as there is underwhelming amount of activity rather than chaos and clutter of Timelash. Litefoot 08.08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the blinding wit. ;) NP Chilla 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've relented and completed the Timelash plot summary. So 3 and 6 done again. As I opened this discussion on that point, can I now close it since we're back we started a week ago.Litefoot 05.36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Subcategories
Some Category:Doctor Who people articles are in several different subcategories of that cat. The one who just caught my eye was Jacqueline Rayner - that article is in Category:Doctor Who novelists, Category:Doctor Who writers, and Category:Doctor Who producers.

As I understand the principles of categorization, an article shouldn't usually be in a category and its subcat - so there shouldn't be people in both Category:Doctor Who writers and Category:Doctor Who novelists. Is this right? And should people who are in several subcategories of Category:Doctor Who people - such as Rayner, Russell T. Davies and Barry Letts- move to the top level cat? &mdash;Whouk (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Logos
Can someone explain the rules on fair use of the various Doctor Who logos to me? A while back I put them in to add a bit of colour to List of Doctor Who serials, and they had to be removed because that wasn't kosher. We now use the logos on Doctor Who, each Doctor's page and a few others. I gather there's a reason why we can't use them on every episode page, but I don't really understand what that reason is. What triggered all of this was a recent anon edit pointing out that The Green Death was the last usage of the "Pertwee logo" until the TVM. Of course, the TVM logo is slightly different from the Pertwee one, and I thought that if it were permissible it might be noteworthy to put a small image of the two logos next to the note. (The Pertwee one is at Image:Third Doctor logo.png and the shinier McGann one is at Image:McGann.png.) Would it be permissible under fair use to put a note and the relevant logo at each first and last use? (So the diamond logo would be placed next to the existing notes at The Time Warrior and The Horns of Nimon, and so forth.) Is that doable, or does it push fair use too far? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the image description page has to contain fair use rationale for every single page that links to that image &mdash; see the separate justifications for separate pages at, say, Image:Hand of God goal.jpg, for example. I don't think we've been very good at this, atcually. Angmering 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We should put notices on all our pictures. It can go on the to-do list! And before anyone asks, "It looks pretty there" is not a valid fair use argument. --Jamdav86 21:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to Gallifrey?
The convention, that is, not the planet. I'll be there — for the first time in years, I'm not in a play in February. Anybody else going? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked into it but decided I'd have to mortgage my house. And as I don't own a house... &mdash;Whouk (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Worth having a classic / new series appearances table?
Now that quite a few are cropping up, would it be worth having a table such as the one below on one of our pages somewhere? I'm not sure which one it'd best be suited to, mind, and it's probably not worth a page all of its own.

There's also an actress who was in Fury from the Deep playing a role in episode seven, I believe, but that thread was yanked down off OG while I was offline for the past couple of days with computer problems, and I can't remember who it was now.


 * Do we have a List of Doctor Who actors, becuase that would be the ideal place. If we haven't got one I'd happily make one, unless anyone objects. I know we already have the category but the page could be ordered by date of appearance.--Bjwebb (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Each of the serials' articles list the cast, and the List of Doctor Who supporting characters mentions the names of the actors of all the regularly appearing characters. Tim | meep in my general direction 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So do you think that a list of actors isn't necesarry? I don't feel the supporting characters page is appropriate for the table above, but I don't think that it deserves its own page.--Bjwebb (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At the start of the Category: Doctor Who actors is probably the best place. It's a nice idea. I've moved it there so people can feedback. Litefoot 13:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Actors appearing in Doctor Who

 * The place Litefoot has put the page is best for the moment, but wouldn't a List of Actors appearing in Doctor Who be a good idea. What do others think?--Bjwebb (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not worth the time and effort, IMHO. The category is the easiest way of maintaining a list, and is easier for users because it's automatically split. Anyone who's notable enough to be on Wikipedia should be in the cat. If they're not notable enough for their own article, they'll be in the case on the relevant serial page. A single list of actors would be ridiculously long - even the Celebrities in Doctor Who article is a bit excessive. &mdash;Whouk (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As one of the biggest single contributors (250+) to the Actors Category I know that one is a bit excessive, but the sheer volume of listing every actor in a list is immense. I added the cast profiles to most stories and have a fair idea quite how many actors we're talking about here. So I vote against, for what it's worth. Litefoot 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree &mdash; there seems little need for a list when we already have the category. Angmering 07:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right.--Bjwebb (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So do I. The table is a nice idea, but perhaps it's a little bit excessive for something of this nature. NP Chilla 16:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous "(Doctor Who)" prefixes in story titles...?
Why bother with the lengthy Tooth and Claw (Doctor Who) and School Reunion (Doctor Who), when both Tooth and Claw and School Reunion redirect towards the serials anyway? Is this a case of Buffy-itis? (ie. Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (Buffy episode) et al.) NP Chilla 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered (Buffy episode) is a bad example, since the episode takes its name from the Rodgers and Hart song, which also has a Wikipedia page. But I know what you mean (Never Kill a Boy on the First Date (Buffy episode)?!?).


 * There's some discussion at Talk:School Reunion (Doctor Who) about whether School Reunion was being saved for a possible page on school reunions, although there wasn't really a consensus about whether that was necessary. As for "Tooth and Claw", Google reveals at least four books by that title.  Dunno if any of them are notable, but the Tennyson quote is well-known enough that I think we can err on the side of disambiguation in that case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Darn it, Josiah, is there anything you don't know?! NP Chilla 22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Doctor's name? —Josiah Rowe, a.k.a. Insufferable Know-It-All (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do actually know the Doctor's proper, Gallifreyan name. It is ...


 * Whoshaballanallapoopoodallarallafalladingdong (which, literally translated from Old High Gallifreyan, means "He who has an unendurably long name") ;) NP Chilla 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Kate Orman would say that's about sixteen syllables too short... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dimensions in Time II???
Please take a look at this - I personally would take the claim of the Doctor and Rose being served by Peggy at the Queen Vic with a pinch of salt (after all, I'm still taking therapy for the last Dimensions in Time), but The Sun has been pretty a reliable source so far. I've added the Nina Sosanya bit to Deep Realms, and would love to hear other people's opinions of this. NP Chilla 13:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd wager that if this is accurate (which it may well be) there will be some in-story acknowledgement of EastEnders as a TV programme, rather than it being presented as "real" in the same fictional universe as the Doctor and Rose. This might take the form of a set visit (after all, we already know that the Doctor and Rose are meeting Trisha and wossname, the ghost guy), or we might be returning to the Land of Fiction or something similar.  Who knows, perhaps the aliens behind the "Idiot's Lantern" TV-attack (whatever that might turn out to be) come back later in the season and trap the Doctor and Rose in "TV land" — I bet Russell and co. could pull that off and make it believable (or at least so much fun that you're willing to suspend your disbelief).  After all, this time last year would you have believed a robot Anne Robinson exterminating a Dalek while saying, "You are the weakest link"?


 * Whatever the details, I'm sure that it won't be anything like Dimensions in Time. (Although I should admit a fondness for the Romana scene in that — the rest is beyond rubbish, but Lalla Ward brings that bit in the garage to a higher level than the rest of the crap.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unlike DiT, which was clearly cobbled together in a hurry, I have far more faith in a DiT-style adventure written by the current regime. They managed to get the Anne Robinson/Big Brother reference to work so I imagine they can work in Eastenders without a problem, although now the show has been sold to the US you might find the BBC pushing away from too many UK-specific references. Anne Robinson and BB worked because they have equity in America, but Eastenders doesn't. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks when the US starts getting the show. 23skidoo 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well considering the Sun's 'insider' says "The funniest thing is she’ll be calling ‘Time’ to the original Timelord.", we can hazard a guess at the accuracy of the rest of the information! DavidFarmbrough 17:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wait for Tennant to make a comment along the lines of "wait, I've been here before...", to throw a spanner into everyone's personal continuity.