Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 2

message: I remember this when I was young in the Netherlands. Shouldn't it be mentioned that it used to be shown in the Netherlands? Andries 11:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be a bit silly to reel off a list of countries this programme has been shown in ; there are dozens of such countries... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it in English or dubbed? I'd think there would be an ineterest in a list of foreign languages the show has been dubbed in... And information about the actors who performed the dubbed voices. Ravenswood 18:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewership: the Netherlands

message: Have a look at Dalek ranks. I've tried a cleanup, but the state of it is quite dire, and desperately needs copyediting and to sort out all the bad information from the good. Maybe it should be redirected to "Dalek models" or something. Suggestions and thoughts? -khaosworks 09:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the information in it needs to be incorporated into the main Dalek article PaulHammond 16:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main Dalek article is already 27,688 bytes, and the Dalek ranks article is 6,738 bytes. Splicing them together would push the Dalek article right up to the 32 kilobyte recommended size limit where it becomes advisable to split the article up.  I think the current division is fine, IMO. Bryan 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I've read the main Dalek article, and I think the stuff about different types of Dalek would be too much of a tangent from what is already there.  The main article is good.  PaulHammond 15:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the Dalek ranks information is way too specific, and on a first read there seemed to be lots of errors... I think it would suffice to cut the article down to a short paragraph or even a couple of sentences, and then include that in the main Dalek article. -Guybrush 02:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What sorts of errors? I think cutting the current rank article down to a paragraph would eliminate a lot of information. What's the problem with keeping it separate? Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to be highly detailed on what would otherwise be "niche" subjects. Bryan 04:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For a start, we can get rid of Dalek Warrior and Dalek Drone - there's never been any such classification on screen (same reason I got rid of Dalek Lieutenant). --khaosworks 04:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should add a "Plain 'ol" Dalek classification when we do, to allow the other types to be contrasted against it. Perhaps "Renegade Dalek"? Bryan 04:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalek ranks

message: I think it's only reasonable that we mention that Rose was very heavily trailed for several weeks beforehand (even on Radio 4 - they surely didn't trail Noel's House Party, occupant of a comparable slot, on radio 4!). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 02:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewership

message: I thought that this would be a better place to make this point than throwing an edit into the fine Doctor Who site here at Wikipedia. "The Five Doctors" was actually broadcast on many PBS stations around the US on November 23rd, 1983. I saw it in Denver, Colorado on KRMA. The PBS stations that didn't broadcast it weren't showing the show anyway.
It even received a feature article in the TV Guide magazine for that week.
In closing I would like to echo what several others on this page have said. There are dozens of websites for this show with lots of information out there. You Wikipedia editors have done a wonderful job in distilling that info into a readable and cogent form. Many Thanks.MarnetteD | (talk) 02:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, The information on the PBS showing of The Five Doctors is on that page, as well as under the "Viewership" section in this article. -khaosworks 02:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information. A perusal of both spots you mentioned showed that they both state that the premiere showing of this episode was in Chicago, as though that was the only station  that aired it that night. I was simply pointing out that its original airing reached a much wider audience than just one city. I didn't want to edit out the station in Chicago by replacing it with the phrase "It was aired on PBS stations nationwide", because Chicago was important to Doctor Who fandom at that time. It hosted the wonderful 20th anniversary convention on November 26th and 27th, 1983, that I was lucky enough to attend. I am enjoying reading the many contributions that you have made to the Doctor Who pages, Khaosworks, here at Wikipedia.MarnetteD | (talk) 13:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Airing of the 20th Anniversary Special The Five Doctors 

message: I've been wondering about the text at the top of the page, which says that "The series is produced by BBC Wales in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". I haven't seen this bit of information anywhere else (not even in the history article), and it's not mentioned again here; anyone know where it came from? As far as I can tell it's spurious at best and should probably be deleted. CBC broadcast the programme, but they had no involvement in its production. -- Guybrush 23:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah...cool. Well, this is why I asked. Can't believe I missed that in the end credits. -- Guybrush 02:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not on the end credits in the UK, so that may be a reason if that's where your episodes are coming from! :-) I believe the deal was basically a pre-purchase agreement, when it comes down to it. Certainly they don't have any kind of creative involvement, they just put some money in. Angmering 10:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So does that mean that the CBC note ought to be struck or not? GraemeLeggett 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're taking a vote, my view is that it should be left in - it may not be in the UK end credits, but the BBC still refers to CBC as its co-production partner in its press releases and such - the first time I noticed this was when the story about where the Rose leak came from broke. "In association with" is suitably vague and it doesn't take much away. If we can pin down exactly what they're doing (financial assistance) then we can make it more specific.  --khaosworks 13:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, the deal was announced in August 2004, so they'd only been shooting a month. The BBC almost certainly would have made exactly the same series with or without them by that point anyway, but they were certainly on board early-on. Angmering 18:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBC involvement? 

message: Perhaps I'm being a little dim here, but does the broadcast schedule of the new series actually belong in the opening paragraphs? Ought'n it go further down under history (an internal link would suffice to take you direct there)? If a reader wants to see when its on, they can buy the Radio Times/local newspaper. GraemeLeggett 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't quite remember when it was inserted but I think it was when the series started. As an overview paragraph, the broadcast times and where it's broadcast is important enough, I think, so people can get a good flavour of what it is from the get go. --khaosworks 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with GraemeLeggett, the broadcast times do not belong in the opening section.  Mentioning the boradcast companies is fine though. --Commander Keane 13:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentences 

message: The dcescription of Doctor Who contains the line, "innovative use of music". There's also been references to the different opening themes used over the years. Somebody (other than me -- sorry!) should write an article about the music in Doctor Who. IMHO. Ravenswood 16:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Music in Doctor Who

message: Can't we get a '10 faces of doctor who' picture with them going round in order, not Tom Baker to Colin Baker and Peter Davison last?
:It's not difficult to do so as it's my photoillustration - I just thought people might find it a bit confusing to do it clockwise, as it's not really a round or square shape. Does anybody else think it should be clockwise instead of up to down, left to right? Like I said, it's only a minute or so of shuffling the Photoshop file around. --khaosworks 11:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
::I think it would get confusing if it went round clockwise. I prefer it as it is. --Jawr256 11:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree that clockwise would be the best way, and that a number (bottom right corner of each picture?) would link it nicely to the list at the side. violet/riga (t) 11:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Rose is prevented from (quite understantably) trying to save her dad in Father's day.
The communications satellite is able to change the course of Earth's history for 90 years and the Doctor is then able to divert it for another century, with a Dalek invasion for good measure - yet nothing happens.
Surely having a character destined to be one of the UK's best PMs in one episode and becoming a city mayor the next time she appears, is a rather blatent failure of series continuity?
:What are you talking about? Harriet Jones was the future PM, not Margaret Blaine. --khaosworks 20:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, but what about the communictions satellite tampering with time? --bjwebb 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current series question