Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 3

message: Does anybody else think that it would give the whole Wikiproject some great motivation to have our own personal collaboration to try and get an article up to Featured Article standard? I think that History of Doctor Who or Doctor (Doctor Who) would be good candidates, mainly because the're very complete anyways :) Thoughts? Sean 02:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TARDIS might be a good choice, it has been peer reviewed. --TimPope 09:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration?

message: Just found this last night.  Needs some cleanup, but it's okay.  Any thoughts? --Sean Jelly Baby? 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the formatting is really appropriate. I'd rather see something written in prose, instead of a massive list. – Seancdaug 17:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Historical characters in Doctor Who]]  

message: Anybody have any idea what this is supposed to be about? There is a Big Finish audio called The Last, but that is clearly not what this article is about! --TimPope 21:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax article - he also created The Next Life in the same way, gibbering about a new companion named Faust. I've speedy deleted both. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just wanted a second opinion as it might have been a comic strip, short story or something else I may not have heard of ;-) --TimPope 17:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Last]] 

message: Right now, the scope of Doctor Who spin-offs is limited to licensed material; originally, my intention in limiting it this way was so as to not have to deal with the numerous fan projects out there. That being said, there's an anon IP who has tried to insert the video projects of the Time Meddlers of Los Angeles into that article, which I reverted.
He has e-mailed me about this, pointing out that there are fan film sections for Star Trek and Star Wars. So I am asking for input on this - should we allow this info in as part of the spin-offs article, or somewhere else? Any thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is not to include this sort of stuff – I mean, where does it end? Can any eight year-old with his parents' camcorder and a silly hat add his own efforts to the piece? I'd be much more comfortable limiting the article to officially-licensed products only, but that's just my view. Angmering 11:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with featuring independent productions based upon Doctor Who concepts - things like the Auton films, the Sarah Jane Big Finish series, Benny Sommerfield, etc. I also wouldn't mind seeing something done on the fan-made Audio Visuals series that was a forerunner of Big Finish. But if we start including every fan made Doctor Who production I agree with Angmering the scope would get to wide. I can't speak for Star Wars or Star Trek. I personally wouldn't feature those fan productions at all, except for the fact some of the Trek ones like Hidden Frontier have been given legitimacy and notability because of the involvement of Roddenberry's estate and people like Walter Koenig. If someone managed to make a Doctor Who fan production and managed to get Tom Baker to reprise the Doctor, then let's talk. 23skidoo 13:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is Devious, which is set between The War Games and Spearhead from Space and features Jon Pertwee at the very end. Oh and me as a Dalek operator somewhere along the line! But as it's been in production for the best part of fifteen years now and still shows no sign of ever being finished, I still doubt it's worth even a passing mention. Angmering 15:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The section that the anon user added mentioned that John Levene appeared in one fan film as "Brigadier Benton", which isn't really much different from Walter Koenig appearing in Star Trek: New Voyages.  My own feeling is that there could be a short sentence about fan films on Doctor Who spin-offs, with a link to a Doctor Who fan films page, which could go into a little detail.  We should, however, generally keep references to fan films out; the only exceptions I can think of are short mentions of this Benton thingy on his page and John Levene's, and maybe a reference to that thing that Jonathan Blum did if anyone ever makes a page for him. —Josiah Rowe 15:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Unsure... it could grow wildly out of control, so I think it doesn't belong in the spin-offs article. On the other hand, an article about fan-made productions in general could have some potential — although any one fan video on its own it is not very notable, that's not to say the phenomenon as a whole should be ignored. --TimPope 17:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan films 

message: As another note, in case people aren't watching the articles - should Doctor Who audio productions and Doctor Who audio releases be merged, renamed, left alone, or what? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Doctor Who audio productions is more of an essay on the subject, and Doctor Who audio releases is really a list.  I think they're different enough that both can be kept, although I wonder if we should rename one of them to differentiate the two better.  Since the Big Finish audios are listed at List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, perhaps Doctor Who audio releases could become List of Doctor Who audio releases plain and simple, with the note I just added pointing people to the Big Finish list? —Josiah Rowe 08:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who audio releases

message: I just reverted an anon editor's addition of comments about the changes of title sequences from the List of Doctor Who serials article.  The additions weren't particularly encyclopedic (the user thought that there was a tradition to signal a Doctor's last season by a change of title sequence, which as far as I know was merely something that happened coincidentally in Seasons 11 and 18), but it got me thinking that maybe we ought to have an article about the Doctor Who title sequences.  It could include information about the howlaround and slit-scan techniques.  I'm not really savvy enough to have much to add to such an article, but I might be able to find the info in Doctor Who reference books I've got around the house.  Do other folks think this would be a useful addition, or is it too crufty? —Josiah Rowe 00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds too crufty too me. However, as the title sequences (particularly the early work of Bernard Lodge) are often cited as innovative and unique, I think a subsection in the main Doctor Who article (or Doctor Who theme music?) might be good.  Or perhaps in the various Doctor articles?--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a subsection in Doctor Who would be better than the Doctor articles, 'cause the major changes in the title sequence don't always correspond with changes in Doctor.  Any other opinions? —Josiah Rowe 02:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe rename the Doctor Who theme music to ??? and include information about the title sequence and the theme music. --TimPope 17:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title sequence article? 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  Can you recommend any suitable articles on Dr Who?  I already have TARDIS down as a candidate, it looks A-class to me.  Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 21:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The three current featured articles are Doctor Who, Dalek and TARDIS. There may be some more candidates soon --TimPope 21:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict) Hmmm.  Well, Doctor Who and Dalek are featured (as is TARDIS).  I like History of Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who), myself, but they've not yet been peer reviewed. Doctor Who theme music and Doctor Who missing episodes are decent too--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: FYI, Doctor Who missing episodes is currebtly a FAC (See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes.--Sean Black | Talk 22:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah — I'd say that Doctor Who missing episodes is at least at A-level now, whether its FAC nomination is successful or not.  There are also some other Doctor Who articles that are at least B-class in terms of quality (First Doctor, Second Doctor, etc.), but their content may be more crufty than what the Wikipedia 1.0 project wants. :) —Josiah Rowe 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: First post in this "group". I have been updating the Big Finish audio stories and was wondering if we could add some CD cover scans for them? I have uploaded one already but it's to big but i could edit that at a later date. (called BFDW74_live34_big.jpg)
I haven't got the skills to add it to the article myself and was wondering if the wisdom of the people here could help me.
Chris razorkiller2004 17:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The syntax you need is . I took the liberty of adding the one you uploaded to the article so you can see what I did. --TimPope 17:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. I'll add more when i have finished updating the stuff.
Chris razorkiller2004 17:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Finish Cover Scans 

message: How about adding information to the Clayton Hickman page? I have a feeling that with people into who they would like to know about the editor of DWM and designer of the BF covers.
Chris razorkiller2004 16:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clayton Hickman 

message: I've noticed that we don't have a lot of consistency in the titles of list articles (which we've got a fair number of).  On the one hand, we have List of supporting characters in Doctor Who and List of robots in Doctor Who, as well as Historical characters in Doctor Who.  On the other hand, there's List of Doctor Who monsters, List of minor Doctor Who villains and List of minor Doctor Who companions.  Does it matter that the naming is inconsistent?  Should we move members of the first group to List of Doctor Who supporting characters, List of Doctor Who robots and List of Doctor Who historical characters (the last of which sounds really bad)?  Or should we move the second group to List of monsters in Doctor Who, etc.?  Or are these best left where they are?  
Is there a Wikipedia standard about this sort of thing?  What do other WikiProjects do?—Josiah Rowe 00:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I don't know - maybe you could check? You have a point, though. There'd be some cleanup to do after the moving, of course. Here's the mop. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do decide to move one group or the other, I will take care of the cleanup.  (Nice mop!)  But which way is better?  Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions isn't terribly helpful, although I suppose the List of German language poets example favors having our lists at List of Doctor Who ___... —Josiah Rowe 01:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationally, it should be "List of Doctor Who ___", as the hierarchy will register as List  > Doctor Who > subcategory. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a survey of other WikiProjects supports "List of Doctor Who___".  Guess that's my work for the next day or two. :) —Josiah Rowe 01:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it didn't take that long.  I think I've moved all the links from main namespace articles, and all the redirects.  (I also changed the Wikipedia:List of lists links, but the changes aren't showing up on the "What links here" list for some reason.) —Josiah Rowe 04:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List article titles 

message: I realize that this has been discussed before, but I wondered if it should be addressed again now that the Project is a bit bigger.  In the Doctor Who articles, our style has been to italicize story titles (e.g. City of Death and Aliens of London).  I think that technically this is inconsistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says that "episodes of a television series" should be placed between quotation marks, not italicized.  Now, I know that for stories in the classic series the question is muddied by the fact that nearly all of the story titles are actually multi-episode serials.  The new series is a different matter, except insofar as we'd like to be consistent with old and new story titles (we don't want to say Spearhead from Space but "The Unquiet Dead").  But then, don't we want to be consistent with Wikipedia as a whole as well?
I know that changing every story mention would be a huge and tedious task — could a bot do it? — but I'm just wondering if we really want to swim against the WikiStyle current on this. —Josiah Rowe 00:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiStyle guidelines are simply that - guidelines. I think Doctor Who is in a unique enough situation that we should maintain consistent style within out own articles. Personally, I hew to the italicised story titles because that's how the major reference works: DWM, The Handbook, the Television Companion, the Discontinuity Guide, all do it. Outside of mainly Doctor Who related articles, we'll follow the crowd, but within our own little sphere, we should stick to what we have. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From a personal viewpoint I think italics look much nicer. Plus it would end up being a tad confusing for the earlier serials where we have story titles *and* individual episode titles. So I say keep the italics. Angmering 07:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, italics are very good.  The MoS is only a guideline, not policy.--Sean Jelly Baby? 22:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. :) —Josiah Rowe 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story titles (again) 

message: While we are discussing logos, what can anyone tell me about the 'Death Comes to Time' logos? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, check Throup's logo page.) --JB Adder | Talk 10:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about them? There's one on the Death Comes to Time page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What is it you'd like to know?  It was only used in the Death Comes to Time webcast which is why the story title is actually part of the logo. Throup (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah...now I feel like a bit of a fool by asking that question. --JB Adder | Talk 22:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: See this: http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article320110.ece
Wow. I am literally gobsmacked! Radagast 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we change the stated aims of the group from being improving articles on Doctor Who to improving articles on Doctor Who and Torchwood? Angmering 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the project's mandate is 'the Doctor Who universe', which automatically includes Torchwood and any other spinoffs, whether print, audio, or TV. Radagast 20:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah. I was completely convinced that it was a hoax. /*Jaw drops*/.--Sean Black Talk 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Torchwood]] 

message: Apparantley Doctor Who is not notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who). Should we take this seriously or not? --βjweþþ (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it does seem like that anon's just trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Can anons even nominate article for deletion?--Sean Black Talk 20:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately so, and the latest AFC is a testament of that possibility. The question I have to ask is what made the anon think that the notability of Doctor Who was even questionable? --JB Adder | Talk 05:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Notable 

message: A while back, there was a discussion here about whether we should continue to link "regeneration" to Doctor (Doctor Who)#Changing faces.  I was just looking at regeneration, a disambiguation page, and realized that there's probably enough content there to begin a new page at Regeneration (Doctor Who).  We could split it off, add some of the discussion from Time Lord#Physical characteristics and Doctor (Doctor Who)#Changing faces, then link the various mentions of regeneration to that page.  If people think this is a good idea, I'll get started on it later today. —Josiah Rowe 20:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. If regeneration wasn't an ability typical solely of the Time Lords, then an article would be worth it; however, because it is, I think creating an article for it wouldn't be worth it. --JB Adder | Talk 21:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can see the usefulness of this (less typing when wikilinking for one), I feel a bit uncertain about it for some reason. It could very well be the daunting task of tracking down and relinking everything, so that's just laziness talking as usual. :) I can see how the article might be done, though, so I'm okay with it either way. Any other thoughts? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all suffer from that link-fixing laziness, so I wouldn't worry about it! Probably why nobody's ever gotten around to moving Russell T. Davies to the more correct location without the   dot. Anyway, as for a separate regeneration piece... personally I can't see the need, but then again as people may have picked up on by now my preference leans more towards Wikipedia covering the 'real' side of the show rather than the 'fictional' stuff. Angmering 23:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...whereas I've got a weakness for fancruft!  At least I recognize it as a weakness, which is why I bothered to ask here instead of being bold and writing Regeneration (Doctor Who) myself. :) —Josiah Rowe 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And on the other hand, I'm interested in both, and would love that all articles have a balance and mix either. We should form a band. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if this is an argument for or against making the article here, but there is a regeneration page at Wikicities:Tardis.  Of course, if we made such a page here its style would be a bit different, but there's some useful content there that could be added here, if we decided to make the page.—Josiah Rowe 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Could we expand Time Lord to have a subsection strictly about regeneration?--Sean Black Talk 00:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that when we talk about regeneration most of the time, we are referring to a specific Time Lord's (i.e. the Doctor's) regeneration. Other times, we are talking about regeneration in general. The more I think about it, it is possible to unify the two by creating the article. We can also talk, like the Index File article, more detail about the real-world reasons for regeneration, and the development of the concept and the changes in name (from renewal, to change of face, to finally being called regeneration in Planet of the Spiders). Like I said, it's possible. Desirable, on the other hand... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point. I want to say, "Sure! Great idea! Go for it!", but then I get the feeling that it'll be AFD'd and I'll actualy have to vote... *shudders*.--Sean Black Talk 02:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFD process is really that bad?  I'm fortunate never to have been involved in it... —Josiah Rowe 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, not really. I'd just hate to have to do it on an article related to Doctor Who.--Sean Black Talk 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's easy fixed. There should really be only one short sentence. I'll do it now, if no-one else has already. --JB Adder | Talk 04:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Khaosworks has already taken care of it. —Josiah Rowe 04:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So I noticed. --JB Adder | Talk 04:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Doctor (Doctor Who) is very large and could do with a cull, so I am weakly in favour of the regeneration article… --TimPope 17:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the closest the idea's going to get to a ringing endorsement, I suppose I'll pronounce it dead now.  Ah, well. :^) —Josiah Rowe 05:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regeneration article? 

message: Should there be a Doctor Who list category including things like List of minor Doctor Who villains and List of Doctor Who planets? There seem to be quite a few Doctor Who lists. Thelb4 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the lists are categorized with the things they represent that have articles of their own E.g. the List of Doctor Who monsters is in :Category:Doctor Who races (or should be, at any rate). I like it that way, myself.--Sean Black | Talk 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think he's suggesting that the lists be switched exclusively to their own  category, but that an additional category be tagged on to them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know. I just don't think it's necessary. But, hey, what do I know?--Sean Black | Talk 22:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It might be helpful if you're looking for a certain list, instead of having to go to a different subcategory and hope that it's there. To get to the List of minor Doctor Who villains, for example, you would have to work out to go to :Category:Doctor Who characters, and if you were a newbie, you might think that the subcategory :Category:Doctor Who villains was an article, therefore not finding the list. It would also be useful if you needed to quickly go to a different Doctor Who list (and that's what categories are all about, aren't they?). Thelb4 09:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a good idea to me, though I'm not very up on the dangers (if any) of "category creep". —Josiah Rowe 00:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I change my mind. I like it.--Sean Black | Talk 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Doctor Who lists created. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a few strays. —Josiah Rowe 07:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List category 

message: My attention has been drawn to this piece of policy at Wikipedia:Fair use.
:The material should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. Because "fair use" material is not copyright infringement on Wikipedia only when used for strictly encyclopedic reasons, their use in other contexts is likely copyright infringement.
The rationale behind this being that fair use images, on a particular page, are okay since they relate to that page and are fairly used to illustrate the subject. Templates, however, due to their blanket nature, are not. So we may have a problem with the use of the logo on the project template and the TARDIS on the stub template. Some may have already noticed a back and forth discussion between myself and  on Template:Doctorwho-stub about this.
Can we come up with a free image that can be safely used on both templates, yet at the same time is representative of Doctor Who? Anybody have a police box near them they can take a photograph of? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got one. It's not great, though.  Angmering 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there's one near Earl's Court tube station — I might be able to go there at some point. No promises when though! --TimPope 17:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Angmering's image might be better than a photo of the Earl's Court police box, since it looks more like the TARDIS.  As I recall, the Earl's Court one has a slightly strange light on the top.  Of course, the best thing would be to get a photo of one of the BBC props — any of you folks near Cardiff? :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now done some tests. Not very good tests, as they all look crap due to the second line carrying on under the picture with the big gap in between, but I don't know how to change that. Here they are, anyway: User:Angmering/Stubtests. Angmering 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry too much about the formating, that's easily fixed. :) I agree that the police box one is probably the best of the lot so far. Until something better comes along, I'm putting it in - we can always swap it out later if need be. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template images

message: Paul Cornell seems to think so, anyway: "I’m quite in awe of my Wikipedia entry. It’s both fair and incredibly accurate. I think I sign up to everything on that page. Or at least I do as of yesterday. It may have changed." Angmering 12:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put that quote on Talk:Paul Cornell. —Josiah Rowe 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If we're doing all right, any idea why Steve Roberts wants the RT article removed? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, sorry. I just read his comment on the forum like everyone else. I thought it was best to relay in the VFD though, whatever it's worth. Angmering 15:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We must be doing something right

message: Over at Category talk:Doctor Who serials, Sean Black and I are discussing creating sub-categories for the stories: :Category:Doctor Who historical stories, :Category:UNIT stories, and so forth, as well as adding serials to existing categories such as :Category:Space opera, and ones that ought to exist, like :Category:Alien invasion.  I'm thinking this would be an additional level of categorization, not replace :Category:Doctor Who serials.  What do you think?  Is this a good idea, or not?  If it is a good idea, what should our "official" sub-categories be? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course I think it's a good idea :). We could categorize the books and audios in a similar way, too.--Sean|Black 00:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a category like :Category:Doctor Who historical stories could encompass stories from all Doctor Who's media. Or is that what you're saying?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, yes. We're in agreement, then! :)--Sean|Black 00:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds all right to me, although my paranoia wonders about possible CfDs. :) That's probably unlikely, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So... anybody got any categories besides the ones I listed above?  Or better ways to title them?  (I figure it's better to get the name right first than put it in dozens of articles and then have to change it.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do we really need them? --TimPope 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The original discussion came about because :Category:Doctor Who serials is frustratingly cluttered, and difficult to navigate. However, I think we should remain broad enough that we can categorize the Who-specific categories within larger fiction categories.--Sean|Black 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Wow... I signed up for this project a while back and promptly did nothing!  In an effort to save face, I put forth the following pitch for an article titled "Music in Doctor Who":
The use of electronic music in Doctor Who had a significant impact on the development of electronic music in the UK from the 1960s forward.   The BBC Radiophonic Workshop was a source of innovation in electronic music, and Doctor Who was one of its most well-known outlets. The theme was (reportedly? actually? possibly?) the first electronic theme tune in the history of (British?) television, and it remains a touchstone of British popular culture.  The realization by Delia Derbyshire is still considered a landmark of pre-synthesizer electronic music.
So that's a very skeletal outline of the article I would envision, although I'm not sure I'm the one to write it.  Is there someone on the project who is a musician, preferably one who has some good sources on the relevance of Who music to the wider world?  Or should we just put up a link in the main article to Mark Ayres' website?
If this has already been proposed, I haven't seen it.  Comments? Gwimpey 04:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have Doctor Who theme music, but I'm sure we could expand it to include th incidental music.--Sean|Black 04:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, I managed to overlook the theme article when writing the above proposal.  D'oh!  How about a Dalek article, we don't have one of those, do we? ;) Gwimpey 04:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Music in Doctor Who" article? 

message: I just came across Mondas (Doctor Who). I was about to merge what ever I could into List of Doctor Who planets, but there's a fair amount of detail there. What should we do?--Sean|Black 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the detail and rewritten it to remove some near-fanon bits. I think there's enough to keep it as an article on its own. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Mondas (Doctor Who)]] 

message: I, Mollsmolyneux, have redesigned the List of incomplete Doctor Who serials page. To view it please Click Here. Please leave any comments you have about the page on My Talk Page and tell me if you think I should put the page on. -- Mollsmolyneux 20:05, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Redesign

message: I strongly dispute the style guide being used by this WikiProject at the moment - specifically the use of the "notes" section to put what is often highly notable information. These are resembling episode guide entries more than encyclopedia entries - for an encyclopedia, notable facts should go in the lead, and details like cast credits, detailed synopses, and the like should follow that. A trivia section may be appropriate at the end, but, for example, on Dust Breeding it makes no sense to me not to have the two most important things about this audio - the return of the Master and the return of Caroline John - in the lead. Phil Sandifer 03:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mostly noticing that a lot of the audio adventures don't mention which Doctor is in them until the plot summary. Some, in fact don't mention it until the cast section - Unregenerate! for example. Since the audios are non-chronological, it's not intuitive just from the season or order. Phil Sandifer 04:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then, you're right. The audio articles need a little work.--Sean|Black 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said in Talk:Dust Breeding, perhaps the audios need an infobox to address this particular point about which Doctor is which. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good solution. I imagine it would only take a little tinkering with the source code of , too.--Sean|Black 04:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll whip something up this evening when I get home from work. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got something in my sandbox. Feel free to have at it.--Sean|Black 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me — the only question I have is whether the "preceded by" and "followed by" boxes are necessary for the audios.  I assume you're intending to indicate release order there, rather than fitting them into the overall narrative of the Doctor's life, which is beyond the scope of this project; but how relevant is it to an article on Jubilee that it was released between Bang-Bang-a-Boom! and Nekromanteia?  (Incidentally, I was terribly surprised just now to discover that there was another Nekromanteia!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I didn't really consider that (and it probably won't assist with navigation more than say, a category would, now that I think of it). I'll get rid of it.--Sean|Black 05:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style guide

message: Who wants to put it together? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to in theory, but RfCs often do little good, in which case it could escelate itself to arbcom, and since I'm an arbcom candidate, I'd rather not predjudice myself. Phil Sandifer 16:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly good reason, Phil, thanks for the offer. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: He's a relatively new account - has he done anything other than be trouble? Phil Sandifer 18:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of. At first his edits were just poor (not a big deal in and of itself), and then he started edit warring, personal attack, etc. Incidently, he got told off by an Arb (Mindspillage) early on. Now I think he's trying to be disruptive.--Sean|Black 19:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What if I were to throw down a two day block for disruption then, and see where we go from there? Phil Sandifer 19:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object, and it would give us time to hash out a plan (or file the RfC, at least). Warn him first, though.--Sean|Black 19:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There's already a stern warning on his talk page about civility. I'll wait for him to fuck up again. :) Phil Sandifer 19:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A RfC may not do any good, but sadly RfCs are necessary if an ArbCom proceeding is possible in future. I have been reliably informed that many RfArs that have not gone to RfC first have been rejected. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, you're taking this personally. It's not about you, it's about the process. You're disrupting the WikiProject's work. And Snowspinner can well file an RfC against you: he's (note his signature) helping us out, and for that I'm grateful. If you assume good faith, you'll find out he's a pretty cool guy (perhaps a bit hot tempered, and passionate in his beliefs, but a cool guy nontheless). We don't want want you to leave, we just want you to change your behaviour.--Sean|Black 19:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "petulant teenager" thing seems like an accurate assessment of your recent behaviour to me.  That's the kind of person who apologises with a hidden "not really" comment, like a child saying that their promise to behave didn't count because they had their fingers crossed behind their backs.  If you behave like a grown up, you'll find people will treat you like one.  btw if, as you have done, you say "if I don't get my way I may come back as a sockpuppet" that absolutely is a threat to use sockpuppets if people don't do what you say.  Talk of "may" doesn't mean "will" is hiding behind mere semantics.  PaulHammond 14:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, that's a threat. You're pushing this too far, dude- just cut it out. It'll make everybody happy.--Sean|Black 08:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Grammatically, it's not.  In context, it is, by implication, just as it's a threat when a goon collecting protection money from a shopkeeper says, "Nice store you've got here.  It'd be terrible if something happened to it."  Grammatically, he's not threatening anything, but in context the clear meaning is, "pay me or I'll do damage to your store."  From Threat: "The message may be vague and implicit in an attempt to avoid blame, including legal consequences, while still clear enough to serve its purpose." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I actually thought this might be a bit harsh, as he backed down this time around without the need for a block. But then, in his request to be unblocked, he goes and starts talking about a cabal again, so that kind of lost him any sympathy from me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: User conduct RfC for TheDoctor10

message: Some the images being used in Doctor Who articles are being deleted because of lack of source info. Here are three which I have identified:
:Image:Mobrien.jpg
:Image:Michaelcraze.jpg
:Image:Wills1.jpg
As they are all uploaded by User:Scifiradioguy, it may just be his, but we probably best check as many as possible! 
--TimPope 22:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Wikipedians seem to find it challenging to know what should or shouldn't be considered a spoiler when it comes to a long-running TV series.  Perhaps project members might find it interesting to contribute their insights on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a spoiler? 

message: Please see  and provide comments. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm indifferent about whether the notes at The Crusade should be divided or not, but I do think that a subdivision of the "Notes" section (as Proteus created at The Daleks' Master Plan) could be useful in many cases.  In highly annotated articles like Rose (Doctor Who), the Notes section becomes unwieldy and difficult to navigate.  We could perhaps provide an optional subdivision in the style guide for sections like "Script", "Production" and "Reception" (these are off the top of my head, and I think that if we do decide to subdivide articles further, we should determine the details collaboratively). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely against subdivision - I just think it should only be used where necessary, and I don't think The Crusades is unweildy enough to warrant it. Should we have a threshold for how big a Notes section should get before we start subdividing? Below 10 notes, say, doesn't make much sense to have to start splitting. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the number of notes that's the issue.  The Five Doctors has plenty, but (when I last read it closely) each note covered one subtopic, or at most two.  My point is that if there are three or more notes addressing the same subtopic, then we have an unwieldy situation, and those notes deserve to be written up as a subsection.  Otherwise, we are forcing our data to fit our pattern, when the pattern was meant to be a sound way of containing our data (the cart before the horse).  It would be better to let Wikipedias loose and add subsections where they feel necessary and then prune their efforts into more regimented categories (Scripting, Actors, etc.)  --proteus71 23:43, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Style guide issues

message: Any reason to exclude Target novelists from this category? I added Ian Marter to it before reading the description, but can't think of any reason to exclude him otherwise. --TimPope 19:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, especially in light of Harry Sullivan's War.  I can see an argument for excluding novelizations pure-and-simple, but Target did publish a few original Doctor Who novels, and there's no reason to exclude their authors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Doctor Who novelists]] 

message: Is it worth considering adding cast sections in the classic series articles, at least for the more prominent guest stars? The Keeper of Traken was mentioned above and doesn't provide a link to Anthony Ainley, for example, even though he has a Wikipedia article. Because the cast list is external, there are no links to cast members who have their own pages. 
(Apologies if this has been discussed before. Having briefly mentioned it to khaosworks, I thought it might be appropriate to raise it here.) Whouk (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned to Whouk that the original reason for only including an external link was because the cast lists for the classic series (unlike the new one) can get awfully long. A possible middle ground is to include only the main roles in the story. Any other opinions? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably scout around and see what's most common in other television articles.  (Feeling lazy right now, or I'd do it myself. :) ) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Star Trek and Babylon 5 list guests in the infobox. --TimPope 20:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Buffy project also list the guest stars in the episode's infobox - see Lessons (Buffy episode). -- --Whouk (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that Doctor Who's format is so different from other shows'.  Most programmes have a large-ish regular cast and a few guests each episode.  Doctor Who, for most of its existence, has had a small regular cast and a large number of guests in each story (who sort of become "regulars" for the story's duration).  I'm not saying that we shouldn't include cast lists, just that we might want to look for another solution (otherwise the infoboxes could get very long). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--Sean|Black 20:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree too. I think the Who infoxboxes are present are fine. I'd rather see a Cast section, the same as has been done with the new series, but given the size of the old casts, perhaps a "Notable guest cast" would be better. This should include the main protagonists and any more minor characters played by notable actors (John Cleese in City of Death perhaps being the best example case, although this is in the Notes, which mention four guest actors in one note). The main problem might be different people having different views as to who's notable. --Whouk (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If either the character played has an article on wikipedia, or the actor has an article, that is a rough and ready guide  --TimPope 21:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds OK, but it's much more likely that an actor in a minor role will have an article than a character that is significant to a particular story. Plucking an example out of the air... Wouldn't the role of Sharaz Jek in Androzani be notable within that article, even if neither the character or the actor had their own article? --Whouk (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, some of it can get a bit long, particularly The War Games. Maybe see if you can cull it down a bit? Or do other people think we should leave it as is? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast lists 

message: Do you think we should template the common plot links, like the BBC cast lists (I noticed that we were debating about this earlier) and the plot links to Outpost Gallifrey?
:For clarification, both #The Invasion (Doctor Who) and #Common external links were started by Jb-adder --JB Adder | Talk 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we really need the plot links to OG - we're doing our own plot summaries anyway, so it wouldn't provide any more information. The question is whether or not the links are useful and provide information not otherwise available in the article itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, not a problem. --JB Adder | Talk 22:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common external links 

message: In the spirit of the recent move from List of minor Doctor Who companions to List of Doctor Who spin-off companions, may I suggest moving List of Doctor Who monsters to the more politically correct List of Doctor Who races, inserting direct outs as before, and moving List of minor Doctor Who villains to List of Doctor Who villains. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support all these moves- navigation will be improved. Specifically, "monsters" to "races"- imagine how many Zarbi that we're offending with the current title :).--Sean|Black 06:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see "monsters" has become "aliens". Are Silurians and Sea Devils treated as aliens, despite being from Earth? (I'm trying not to be pedantic about Autons, Haemovores, and Primords :-) --Whouk (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, pooh. Yeah, I thought of that once I started getting into it, but should we just let that slide? Alien doesn't necessarily mean "extraterrestrial", if we're really going to be pedantic... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the lead for the list article explains that (to avoid anyone else saying the same thing), I don't think it's a massive problem. --Whouk (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I might have missed a few redirects. If anyone spots 'em, please fix 'em. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More page move suggestions

message: Any chance someone could come up with a way of linking every artical to the main Doctor Who Portal. Just that it's time consuming to keep typing in Doctor Who and clicking on the portal link. Tenchi Muyo 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an easily-solved problem, Tenchi. Since all the articles in the Doctor Who project have the WikiProject ticker on the talk page, we adapt the ticker to contain the portal link. --JB Adder | Talk 01:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: There is a template, I notice, called :
	This article or section contains information about a scheduled future television show(s).  It contains information of a speculative nature based on commercials for the show, its website and/ or other advance publicity. The content may change as the date of broadcast approaches and more information becomes available.
Would it be worth adding this to certain pages, for example The Christmas Invasion? --Whouk (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not Christmas Invasion since it airs in only a few days. I don't know if the template is intended for use on individual episodes. I could see it added to Torchwood however. I n fact I'll go ahead and do so if no one else has already. 23skidoo 12:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future TV show template 

message: I created the following, if you're interested:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
If you want to be geeky and completist about it, you can make boxes for the other two as well. --Jamdav86 13:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks! Although I think the promotional pictures have to go, we can only use those under fair use. Still nifty, though.--Sean|Black 23:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I've been using the following on my user page. It doesn't have any pretty pictures, but I prefer to keep my userboxes free of all but the most simple images. Make of it what you will. – Seancdaug 17:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Since we're in the process of adding the cast lists to classic series episodes, I've noticed that there's some inconsistency in whether the character is being listed as "The Doctor" or "Doctor Who" — that is, we're not being consistent with what the series used at the time of each story.  (The series, of course, was not itself consistent.)  I think we should list the character as he was credited at the time: that is, as "Doctor Who" up through Logopolis, as "the Doctor" from Castrovalva to Survival, and back to "Doctor Who" for the 2005 series on.  Does anyone disagree?  Want to make a case for being consistent one way or the other? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's fine to use whatever was in the credits. The inconsistency is mentioned in Doctor (Doctor Who), so it should be okay.--Sean|Black 23:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think I've taken care of the First Doctor stories which have casts so far.  I haven't been through all the serials systematically, though, so there may be some stragglers added in here and there which need to be amended. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an ardent copy-and-paster, if I continue my advance through the 1st Doctor serials and onwards they will have "Doctor Who" instead of "the Doctor". ;) --TimPope 09:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "The Christmas Invasion" credited David Tennant as "The Doctor".  I wish that flippin' Time Lord would make up his mind about his name! Gwimpey 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh. I think it's just how we deal with it in the cast credits; we'll do it according to how he was credited at the time, but within the articles, he's always "the Doctor", barring the odd slip-up like The War Machines or the running gag of "Doctor who?". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Doctor Who" or "The Doctor" in cast lists 

message: Please vote at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Actors by series and its sub-categories as this category is one of a number of categories nominated for deletion. --TimPope 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Doctor Who actors]]