Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 11

message: Looking at Aliens of London just now, I had a thought - why not merge two-parters from the new series together. It might save quite a bit of repeating ourselves. I don't know what they would be called, though. --Thelb4 13:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty is that it would make for a really, really long article, and it's not like the old days when they were a discrete production code. Also, the production team treats them as separate episodes, with separate production paperwork, despite a continuing story. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've done a mock-up of Aliens of London/World War Three. --Thelb4 21:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was against this until I looked at your example, and now I'm starting to think it might not be a bad idea. In terms of Wikipedia bigest concerns would be the title of the article - "Aliens of London/World War Three" seems really awkward, although I guess with proper redirects it wouldn't be a problem. And then, as khaosworks says, we run into article length. I don't think it would be as bad as it might seem, because a lot of the notes are going to be duplicated between episodes - and looking at your sample, the notes don't seem any longer than any other episode. The main issue seems to be the plot desciption, but (and this is sort of a different topic), I think our plot descriptions tend to be waaay too long and detailed anyway, so much so that we're possibly running into copyright infringement territory. In any event, I definitely think your idea is worth more discussion. --Brian Olsen 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment above seemed to have gotten truncated somehow - I was trying to say, "In terms of Wikipedia, notability for a full story might be easier to justify than two seperate articles for each half of a full story. My biggest concerns..." Not sure how I deleted before saving the page... --Brian Olsen 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  It could be argued that the current naming standard is the same as what was done in the Hartnell Era.  That would leave us needing separate articles for An Unearthly Child, The Tribe of Gum, 25 minutes of running around and screaming, and Whatever part four was called. (We don't list the episode titles here?) After all, the current two parters are what was once the standard length for a Doctor Who story.Algr 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are good arguments for and against, but I think that the determining factor will have to be how the episodes are named.  If the SJA episodes are under one title with "Part 1" and "Part 2", it'll obviously be easy to put them into a single article, but if the two-part story is composed of episodes with different titles article naming becomes very awkward.  I think that's the determining factor for two-part Doctor Who stories as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've started to shorten the plot, but I think it needs a complete rewrite to make it much shorter. --Thelb4 13:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two parters 

message: ...for the List of Torchwood minor characters. Could someone with the capabilities please take and add some to the article? It's particularly important for the other Captain Jack character as someone has already arrived confused and changed the actor credits to John Barrowman. It would also be useful for Bilis Manger and Diane Holmes. We could use the period piece pictures from the website, but then it would jar with the higher-res full-colour pictures of Lisa Hallett, Rhys Williams, PC Andy and Suzie Costello. Thansks! ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maria Jackson, Luke Smith, Kelsey Harper and Mr Smith could all do with images too, along with the characters on List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters. --GracieLizzie 19:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Billis and Captain Jack 1941 done for TW, Maria, Luke, Kelsey and Smith done for TSJA. Hope this helps, now lets hope someone doesn't decide to orphan them with "promos" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, promos would give us more than head shots. I was kinda hoping for shots of all of their upper bodies not just their heads and shoulders. The Mr Smith one though is spot on. --GracieLizzie 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the thing, can you prove they are promos? What makes it a promo because it came from the BBC website? Nothing. That poor little  tag is abused :-(, hehe. Oh and if do decide to upload new versions use the feature entitled "Upload a new version" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used the upload new version feature to upload cropped versions of the Captain and Bilis Manger's pictures (which are very nice by the way) and I've gotten rid of the stuff that surrounds the when they are thumbnails so they are inline with the rest of the images in the file. --GracieLizzie 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures needed 

message: Assuming there's no objections, I'm going to disambiguate Mr Smith later this evening. Right now, there is a disambiguation page at Mister Smith, a Doctor Who article at Mr Smith (no period), and a music album article at Mr. Smith with period). Given that "Mr", "Mr.", and "Mister" all mean the same thing, and are used interchangeably, it's a bit of a mess. My plan is to move Mr. Smith to Mr. Smith (album), Mr Smith to Mr. Smith (some acceptable Doctor Who disambiguator), and point Mr and Mr. Smith to the disambiguation page, which already has links for the Who/music articles. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Wikipedia's guidelines were to avoid suffixes unless their is no other option, which is why I've went with Mr Smith instead of Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). --GracieLizzie 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but in this case there isn't enough of a distinction between "Mr", "Mr.", and "Mister". It's similar to what happens sometimes with page moves - an article like "Able Baker (Charlie)" might get moved to "Able Baker" to avoid using a disambiguator, but there may already be an article at "Able baker". Wikipedia's coding treats each article as being distinct, but it creates problems for real-world use. --Ckatzchatspy 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean. Well I don't mind, though I shall say I'd rather we used the suffix (The Sarah Jane Adventures) than (Whoniverse) or anything else, I dislike Whoniverse being used too much outside the Whoniverse article and because he/it only appears in TSJA so far anyway. --GracieLizzie 01:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree - it should be at Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). --Brian Olsen 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure that Mr. Smith deserves an article of his (its?) own yet — I'd have kept it/him at List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters for now.  (Based on Invasion of the Bane, I'd say Mr. Smith was a somewhat less important character than Maria's father.)  However, if we want to keep the article, I agree that Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) or Mr Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) is the best alternative.  My understanding is that conventional UK writing style omits the full stop after "Mr", so the latter may be best. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - it's now at Mr Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures). Thanks for the input on the disambiguation tag, and the suggestion re: "Mr". I double-checked the episode credits and they did in fact use "Mr" (no period), so I've also redirected Mr. Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures) to the correct page. I'll try to get to correcting the other links that were affected as quickly as I can. --Ckatzchatspy 07:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Smith is a technology not a character, to me it looks like Mr Smith is going to be TSJA's TARDIS or Rift. That's why he needs his own article. --GracieLizzie 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr Smith

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: The viability of the article for Doctor Who at the BBC: The Plays, the Beeb's compilation CD release of three radio dramas about how Doctor Who affects people out in the real world, has come into question.  If you have a moment, please look over the article, and then hop over to the article's talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion.  Thanks! Rob T Firefly 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who at the BBC: The Plays 

message: Has it been revealed yet as to how Captain Jack was able to get from the events in the 2002nd century to the time of the Torchwood Television series? Just wondering. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7  22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it involves the Rift. Other than that, all we know is he didn't surf there.--Aderack 11:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless he had an extrapolator... SalemMacGourley 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He did seem to spend alot of time with the extrapolator in Boom Town and The Parting of the Ways, is there a possiblity he could of made a duplicate. He is a con-man after all...... --I.W 15:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Captain Jack Harkness 

message: There's quite a lot of information about the specific history of Earth in Doctor Who, which differs quite considerably with non-Whoniverse Earth. Interesting politics, countless invasions, organisations, plots to destroy, interesting formation (Racnoss core, Mondas twin), mythical properties (Rift and Abaddon). Would Earth (Doctor Who) or Earth (Whoniverse) be a useful article? What I mean to ask is, would anyone consider contributing to such an article if it was created? Since future stories are frequent, would it be any different to an article about Skaro or Mars? There could also be a history of the Earth, also detailing the various parrallel universes.  ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh. Theres that word! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the appeal of an article like the one you describe, but it would be very difficult to avoid original research.  (Actually, I think that Whoniverse is rather OR-ish, but I won't make a stink about it right now.)  If you can cite specific episodes and, as much as possible, notable secondary sources (like the Discontinuity Guide, Lance Parkin's AHistory or the About Time series by Lawrence Miles and Tat Wood), such an article might be all right, but you'd have to be very careful to avoid anything which resembles a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mars (Doctor Who) is a great prototype as to how it could be done, I'd say. Excellent suggestion. Radagast 03:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earth 

message: I know that you good Dr Who wikipedians will catch this anyway but I thought that I would let you know that User:Tom Prankerd is adding reviews of various televised stories to a website entitled CounterX. A quick perusal of the site lead me to deduce that it is this editors own site based on the number of wikipedia articles on Formula 1 Drivers that they have edited here and the opening paragraph of the F1 section of the CounterX website. Now if these are okay with you all that is just fine with me but if they are not I thought I would try to alert you early to cut back on the amount of work that will be necessary to remove them and so that you can alert the user to any problem that adding them to the external links section causes. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 01:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possivle link to personal website

message: wikia:Tardis at all? Just found it. Sadly it lacks a lot of the detail that regular Wikipedia articles have on characters, with a lot of OR and inaccuracy that a part of me really wants to get serious about correcting. ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, no. - I rarely leave Wikipedia except for Memory Alpha, The 4400 Wiki and Battlestar Wiki. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A total disappointment.  It's just a shell of what Wikipedia has to offer for DW. The Core-Man 01:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited there a little bit in February and March 2005, when there was really nothing there.  Then I discovered the extensive Doctor Who content here on Wikipedia, and began editing here more regularly — never really went back.  Bit of a shame, since there's certainly room for a Doctor Who-based wiki like Memory Alpha, going into more detail than we can here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A point holding me back is the fact it's on a Wikia sub-domain. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone here contribute to... 

message: Okay, the Captain Jack article is very popular, obviously. Problem is as his history has been added in dribs and drabs, it reads like "and this was revealed about Jack, and this was revealed about Jack... then we learnt this about him..." - very nonlinear. Would it make sense to reconstruct it like...
TITLE
Context paragraph and infobox 
(some of which could be moved to a descriptive section, adding themes which follow Jack's character around)
==Characterisation==
Some of the context from before goes here, as well as the information about Jack's character. Stuff regarding the character's sexuality, themes like the value of human life, etc. would all go here. A line or two touching on the rank of captain, too.
==Character history==
===Before Doctor Who===
Information about the war in the future, Time Agency, con man, Lahore, WW2, becoming "Jack", meeting Estelle etc. (Pre-The Empty Child)
===Doctor Who season 1===
Literal summarisation of the events.
===Torchwood season 1===
Literal summarisation of the events.
===Doctor Who season 3===
We don't need this just yet anyway.
==Other appearances==
Books.
==Powers and abilities==
Could improve.
==Episodes== (could be renamed "Appearances in Doctor Who universe" to include books.)
;Doctor Who
;Torchwood
(doesn't require subsections imo)
==References==

As I see it, this article should improve lots. Similar articles would be Andrew Van De Kamp, Buffy Summers. I'm not entirely certain how it should be formatted which is why I've come here instead of reworking it. For example, Spike (Buffyverse) has a subsection of history entitled "Appearance and Personality", whereas the Andrew Van De Kamp one has an entire section on "Character". Buffy Summers' history is split into "Sunnydale" and "Italy", whereas Spike's is "Sunnydale" and "Los Angeles" etc.
I definitely think we should have a section about Jack's character, and to have his history spelt out in an out-of-universe format. The article on Memento gives the film's events in chronological order, not the way the film explains it etc.
So yeah, I think Jack's page should be brought up the quality of say, Doctor (Doctor Who). ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be proposing to rewrite it in in-universe format (Jack's experience order), not out-of-universe format (which would be the same as broadcast order).    Morwen - Talk 23:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in-universe, it's just clearer. Like Memento being detailed in the actual event orderm not narrative description. Everything is still presented in broadcast order, including explanations of how everything was revealed. The most similar to Jack Harkness with an article would be Angel (Buffyverse). It's still out-of-universe, citing episodes, interviews, and not just some sort of story retelling. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite: [[Jack Harkness]] 

message: I was stub sorting earlier and encountered this new article. I made some minor improvements but a project member might want to merge it into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. Don't forget to check Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Spiridons before adding a delete tag. :-) Random Passer-by 16:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect, maybe? ~ZytheTalk to me! 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination is redirect too, but I'm not sure whether it's better to redirect to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens#S or Planet of the Daleks.  It's also worth noting that the Spiridons have appeared in spin-off fiction, most recently in the audio Return of the Daleks, but also (I think) in the DWM comic strip "Emperor of the Daleks".  It could be argued that this gives the Spiridons as much right to their own article as, say, the Zygons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (In case you want a neutral outsider's view.) You're the experts but I'd move the content paragraph to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens#S and redirect there because The Spiridons are a species (if it was Spiridon then I'd redirect it to Planet of the Daleks although if you feel they're becoming notable characters then you should probably remove the notability tag and expand the article. Random Passer-by 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Second thoughts) I think I was wrong earlier and if you decide on a redirect, instead of expansion, then the rediredt should go to Planet of the Daleks. I'll go away and mind my own business now. ;-) Random Passer-by 22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Spiridons]]

message: User 203.9.186.134 has been adding links to a page of fan-made commentaries to some of the episode pages. I was about to start taking them off as non-notable, but I just wanted to mention them here first in case there's some notability to them that I'm not seeing. The anon user adding them seems pretty vocal about the notabilty of alternate commentaties, so some other opinions couldn't hurt. Here's an example - MMM Commentaries mp3 commentary on episode one - from The Faceless Ones. --Brian Olsen 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, Random Passer-by has already done it...I'll be bolder next time... --Brian Olsen 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this subject, I've just referred User 203.9.186.134 to this project from my talk page. I hope any resulting discussions are fruitful for both sides. See User talk:Random Passer-by#External links to MMM Commentaries (on .mp3 files) for the relevant exchange. Random Passer-by 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan commentary links 

message: After wondering if the category Lists of novels was any proper for any of the corresponding Doctor Who book series articles as Past Doctor Adventures, &c... 
I decided: why not create a listing of all of them? 
Any thoughts?* *Or would that be problematic having the like around? DrWho42 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the :Category:Doctor Who books, which includes the :Category:Doctor Who books, had somehow previously been included in the :Category:Short stories. Don't ask me how, I dunno. I just found it there. I think that no one would object to seeing the :Category:Doctor Who books placed in the :Category:Novels by series, and will actually do that now. Regarding the specific list, that's something a project member would have to answer. I'm not one. There is however an existing List of Doctor Who novelisations which you might be able to use. Hope that helps a little. Badbilltucker 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the category change, Badbilltucker.  I think that a single list of Doctor Who novels would be redundant with the existing lists by novel line (List of Doctor Who novelisations, Virgin New Adventures, Virgin Missing Adventures, Eighth Doctor Adventures, Past Doctor Adventures and New Series Adventures).  A single list would just duplicate the content of those articles, wouldn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a page that provides an overview of the various novel ranges, and links to each? That could be helpful. Right now, the navigation panel just links to the category, which is kind of hard to make sense of if you don't know what you're looking at. It can start by discussing the Target novelisations; then explain how the VNAs grew out of those once there was nothing left to novelise; then go on about the BBC taking the novels in-house after the TVM -- with side mentions to the PDAs and whatnot as they come about. It can also briefly discuss the impact the novel ranges had on the show and fandom, with a bunch of new series writers coming from the novels and some people even becoming fans of the novel range instead of the original TV show. --Aderack 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; there's an overview at Doctor Who spin-offs#Prose fiction (a header I just created), but there's no article that covers just written Doctor Who fiction.  I can see more value in such an article explaining the history and context of Doctor Who fiction in print than in a mere list of novels (which I still think would be redundant with existing articles).  If you feel like spinning out such an article from Doctor Who spin-offs, feel free; that page could probably use a restructuring anyway. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Doctor Who novels|List of ''Doctor Who'' novels]]? 

message: Heck, wasn't expecting this - . What do we do with this now? (i.e. does it go in the List of Doctor Who serials or spinoffs, or what?) - NP Chilla 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord what are the BBC doing :-\! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there goes my dream of a Cosgrove-Gonzo production of Rose Tyler: Earth Defence, heh (yeah I know it was never going to happen). It seems to me this is going to be too significant just to stick in the Totally Doctor Who article in the long run but perhaps it could got their for now? Or should we treat it as a serial? --GracieLizzie 19:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My early inclination was to keep it in Totally Doctor Who for now, but since The Infinite Quest has been created, and will eventually be more than a stub, I suppose it can stay. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Infinite Quest 

message: I've started to expand this article - advice and feedback from established project participants would be welcome. Matthew Kilburn 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me so far, Matthew. I'm afraid I'm not much good on the DWAS (I was only a member for a few years around the turn of the century), but if I recall there are chapters in The Seventies and The Eighties from Howe-Stammers-Walker which might have some useful material, if you have access to those. Angmering 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who Appreciation Society 

message: Newly created and for all those novelisations Dicks did, is the category name too lengthy or just right? Thoughts? DrWho42 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - makes one wonder why no-one thought of it before! - NP Chilla 07:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Doctor Who serials novelised by Terrance Dicks|Category:Doctor Who serials novelised by Terrance Dicks]]