Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 5

message: I know this has been debated on here before. It seems some people got upset at the idea that CBC was listed as a co-producer for the first two series of Doctor Who and partner for the third. BBC has now announced in Cannes that CBC is co-producer for Torchwood.
Being a co-producer doesn't mean creative control over a TV series or movie. Check out many of the syndicated series of the 1990s and the list of co-producers was long and often involved German, Canadian, French, British and American companies.
At any rate, the article as it stands is inaccurate. BBC Worldwide sells the series to other nations and always lists CBC as co-producer for first and second series, partner for the third. jdobbin 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to argue that, but people still get the wrong impression from the word "co-producer", hence the current wording which doesn't give a title, but describes the relationship between CBC and BBC Wales in relation to the series and trying to avoid the whole issue together. I think it's an acceptable compromise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes for an inaccurate article. There have been plenty of Canadian TV series that had British co-producers. In some cases this has meant some creative contributions but in just as many cases, there has been no creative contribution at all. A relationship is what the BBC has with broadcasters that have distribution agreements with it. In the case of the CBC, it is an investor that has certain rights of ownership over that product as per what was negotiated. jdobbin 02:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, by saying that the CBC has contributed some development money to the production is perfectly true, so in what way is it inaccurate? What else would you like to add, and let's see if we can add that? The problem with the shorthand of "co-producer" is that is can be misconstrued, as you said. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the BBC lists CBC as co-producer, it should be listed in any description of the production. I think that would be the most accurate. If the BBC has no problem with the term, no one else should either. jdobbin 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that some people do have problems and can misunderstand what co-producer means, so by using that term, we are introducing vagueness when the current wording does not. So again, terminology aside, what is inaccurate about the description as it stands? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows chauvinism and POV. "Some development money" is not the same the same things as co-producer. Co-producer is an indication of ownership which is exactly how the BBC lists it in their sales department. They never fail to mention it as a co-production when announcing distribution agreements world-wide. It is probably pointless to argue it since any change on the main page will probably result in it being reversed right away. The article is nevertheless inaccurate. Thankfully, the proprietorship of Torchwood is not so disputed. CBC is listed as co-producer there. jdobbin 15:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not getting you: you say that development money is not the same as "co-producer", and yet you acknowledge that in some cases co-producer means creative input and that in this case CBC has none. So I'm asking you what would make this description more accurate? "Some development money and distribution rights"? What needs to be added to make it accurate? Because, once again, to simply use "co-producer" can be misconstrued. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The only thing that would make it accurate is co-producer. I suggest the guidelines set up by motion picture and TV industry should be the standard. Anything else is inaccurate. Wikipedia is supposed to look to eliminate POV. Calling it development money is simply an inaccurate statement of the relationship between BBC and CBC. jdobbin 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you still haven't told us what exactly is inaccurate about the description. What else needs to be said aside from providing development money? What is the definition of a co-producer in this context? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The motion picture industry says that that money or creative direction put up one person or entity is entitled to a producer credit. [] Why is it that co-producer is forbidden from describing the relationship? Why is it misconstrued on the Doctor Who entry and not others? jdobbin 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people might take it to mean creative control in this context. You still haven't answered the question, though - what else is needed to describe the relationship? What is wrong with describing the relationship accurately if there can be confusion?  --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of compromise, let's try this: "Some development money is contributed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which is credited as a co-producer in overseas markets, although they do not have creative input into the series." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be a more accurate description of the relationship. jdobbin 02:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CBC Now Listed as Co-Producer Again

message: I've been working on my own "Ten Doctors" image, and I tried to use a collection of each logo yet it just looked stupid. My final result is this. If anyone likes it, it will be reverted. Apologies that I could only fit the McGann logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davros27 (talk • contribs) 
:Its very dark, I could hardly make out Tom baker, Paul McGann and Slyvester McCoy. maybe its just my monitor??? quercus robur 09:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures seem a bit stretched, and I'd suggest not using a picture of McCoy from the TV movie. Thanks for the effort. I'm happy to stick with the current image though. —Whouk (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Thanks for the effort, Davros, but I think the one we've got is pretty good (not to mention that it took about a week of negotiation to reach it!).  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More "Ten Doctors" stuff 

message: Simply wondering if there can be arranged a list of Whovians not entirely unlike the List of notable Star Trek fans. Do you think assembling such wouldn't be a bad idea?
DrWho42 21:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the entries are verified (as most of the ones on that Star Trek list are), sure.  Go for it! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, actually, now that I've found the article, it seems it would be an extension or furthering of the Doctor Who fandom stub.. Which certainly can do with some improving.DrWho42 23:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of notable Doctor Who fans 

message: Has anyone noticed, if they look closely enough, the black bar towards the left of the image ? Shouldn't this be rectified by simply editing the image a bit in order to eliminate this? DrWho42 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original did not have a black bar. For some reason,  replaced that image in November. I've reverted. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black bar in the "Doctor Who" image 

message: After Aquanostra's recent edits, I was looking at the section on the Doctor.  I restored this bit:
:In all his incarnations, the Doctor has been an adventurer and a scientist with a strong moral sense. He usually solves problems with his wits rather than with force, and is more likely to wield a sonic screwdriver than a gun.
I had originally put that in in order to mention the sonic screwdriver, but I think its real value is that otherwise the section doesn't really talk directly about what sort of character the Doctor is.  I was also wondering a bit about this section:
:While the original series run had always worked the regeneration into the storyline, the 2005 series began with the Ninth Doctor already regenerated, with no appearance by the Eighth Doctor. This was a deliberate choice by producer Russell T. Davies in order to avoid confusing new viewers, who would have no emotional investment in the character before he was replaced. However, the Ninth Doctor's comments about his own appearance in Rose suggest that the regeneration may have occured shortly before that episode. 
:Eccleston decided to leave the new series after only one season, and audiences saw the Ninth Doctor regenerate into the Tenth Doctor during the 2005 season finale, The Parting of the Ways. The Tenth Doctor's first full episode, The Christmas Invasion, was screened on Christmas Day 2005.
Since the section doesn't really talk about any of the other regenerations, is it really important for us to to discuss the absence of an 8-->9 regeneration scene, or the fact that Eccleston stayed for only one season?  It's covered at Doctor, which is linked from that section.  While these were matters of great import to fans last year, are they really that important in the grand scheme of what Doctor Who is, especially in an encyclopedia article for a general audience? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Doctor" section 

message: The page currently states that the number of episodes, as of April 15th, 2006, is 719.
I'm sure there is a very good reason for this number, but it doesn't gel with my own count of 711, which is indeed supported by various places, including Doctor Who Magazine (check the Time Team article) and even current executive producer Russell T. Davies (he once wrote that Aliens of London might be considered the 700th episode).  Where does 719 come from?  Are you including the six incomplete and never broadcast episodes of "Shada"?  Are you also counting "Resurrection of the Daleks" as four episodes, instead of the transmitted two?
I would argue for the number to be ammended to 711, and naturally increasing by one each week that the new series is on.  Though of course, I'm certainly open to hear arguments for the 719 figure.
Adamsappleturnover 20:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in the rationale too. Tooth and Claw was 712 by the DWM count. —Whouk (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes 

message: Hi guys. I streamlined most of the Doctors' personality descriptions in each of their sections in order to keep things a little more focused and flowing for newbies (and I don't feel that most of the references to specfic episodes are needed). In short, the personality descriptions should be brief and generic for newbies who are just browsing, yet accurate and complete enough for "fans". Anyway, Josiah and Khaosworks, please consider these changes before butchering them in a merciless fashion. hehe ;-) Thanks. :-) Aquanostra9 20:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The various Doctors' personalities 

message: Hi. As I said, I strongly feel that it's quite redundant and awkward having a full definition of the TARDIS in the Doctor section, for there's ALREADY a perfectly good link provided which will take a newbie to the appropriate info.
In fact, the whole POINT of a link is so a page won't get bogged down defining every other term. Furthermore, part of the fun of Wikipedia is to click on potentially unfamiliar terms and see where they will take you. 
Lastly, if one sticks to the logic of defining the TARDIS despite a link already being provided, then one should also define "Time Lord", and each of the Doctor's incarnation's in the Doctor section (or anything else that's linked). Of course, one obviously wouldn't do that, for not only would it take up too much room, but there are already links provided in order to avoid that very problem. So, I don't see why it should be any different for the TARDIS. I say, just stick to a simple link. Aquanostra9 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've gone through this before. The difference is that the TARDIS's police box shape. is such an iconic part of the Doctor's imagery — that's what needs to be described, not so much the TARDIS itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Then wait to convince people before inserting your own, since the version that is up there is the consensus version that was agreed on the last time you tried to insert those changes. I've said my piece - let's see what other people say before you insert those changes again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What full definition? It describes 3 things which are fundamental to the TARDIS. It's a time machine. It's bigger on the inside than on the outside. It looks like a police box. That's redundant? The basic information needs to be in the main article so that people don't have to wade through the mass of info that is in TARDIS if they don't want to. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: How does it disrupt the flow to have one sentence? You might as well get rid of all the sections on Doctor Who music, missing episodes, etc. in favour of links. The point is to provide enough basic informarion so they don't have to go to the other article at all if they don't want to. Which is not how Wikipedia does it. The TARDIS is important to the Doctor and to the series - to remove any explication of it besides the name seems rather odd to me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried a compromise wording - you don't want to compromise. I guess I'll leave it to someone else to see if they disagree with you. Please keep in mind WP:3RR before reverting, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TARDIS definition in the Doctor section? 

message: I removed the 4th Doctor Image in the simpsons due to the fact the image was deleted and a broken link was left in the box.  Hope no one has any issues with it Aeon 04:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of the 4th Doctor in the Simpsons 

message: Just to make a note of this, I'm putting Camille Coduri and Noel Clarke into the "starring" list, as they remain regular cast members. ☺ -- The pathetic APclark Be nice not nasty 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're counting votes, I would go for only the actors listed in the title sequence. --Billpg 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it is the safest way, long term, of defining who is "starring", but I don't really mind either way. The lines blur when someone not in the title sequence becomes a companion... —Whouk (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, to make things even more blurred, the 2005 series was actually the first to provide actor credits during the opening. From 1963-89 the actors were credited at the end and the actors playing the companions were not always listed first, either. 23skidoo 22:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly a bit muddy to say who is and isn't a "regular" on Doctor Who.  Coduri and Clarke will probably be in about half the episodes this season, if that helps — Clarke more than Coduri, as he's actually traveling in the TARDIS later this season (perhaps starting next week?).  In the "classic" series we tended to think of "regulars" as meaning "the Doctor and the companion(s)", but even that wasn't entirely accurate — Roger Delgado was certainly a regular in Season 8, and although Kamelion technically traveled in the TARDIS for most of Season 21 I don't think anyone would say that Gerald Flood was a series regular at the time.  I wouldn't say that Bruno Langley was a regular last season either. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has also been a longstanding argument over the status of the UNIT characters from the Pertwee era. The Brigadier, Benton, and Yates were in most episodes and that has given rise to questions whether they should be considered companions. And if you use the "must travel in the TARDIS" criteria, that actually disqualifies Liz Shaw, who is generally considered an undisputed companion. In terms of Coduri and Clarke, I consider them to be regular cast members. Bruno Langley, however, was only a guest star in two episodes -- although he does qualify as a companion. 23skidoo 13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why for the purposes of the infobox, the safest choice would be simply to take the two banner names. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, since the infobox is supposed to refer to the entire series (1963-89; 1996; 2005-), I would personally prefer to see the 10 Doctors listed myself. 23skidoo 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but... y'now. Clutter. Right now it says "various, currently..." which I think suits it just fine. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Program Userbox 

message: The Doctor Who Restoration Team
Maybe I've overlooked it, but I don't see a link to this site in this article, and I thought mention of this project should somehow be worked into the "Missing episodes" section or its footnotes.
:They are mentioned in the main article at Doctor Who missing episodes. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing episodes:  Missing this link? 

message: Is the Dr Who pinball game really worthy of a mention in this article? There has been untold Dr who mrchanidise over the years, some far more notable - my personal favourite was the mid 6os Sky Ray lolly! Personally I feel that refernce to it should be moved to the merchandise dedicated artilce. quercus robur 23:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be moved to the merchandise article. 23skidoo 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinball worthy of a mention?

message: I believe that the spoiler-tag can be moved down one section. The history-section contains one very small spoiler (that an episode is called Rose). Other than that it is very interesting for everyone to read therefore I suggest moving the tag down a bit. 82.182.116.8 21:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler

message: With only a few fan sites listed, how does one select which ones should be there?  I'm surprised anyone objected to removing Doctor Who Online, as it's always been such a joke in the fan community, given it's long history of plagarism of long-standed respected sites.  How does one choose which select few sites should be here.  And with Wikipedia's views on plagarism, should one of those few sites be one that is so completely against the wiki philosophy? Nfitz 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EL.  Fansites are basically not permitted on Wikipedia.  At most one site, if it is widely regarded as the preeminent fan site, can be linked as a general rule.  Alternatively, an external list of fansites can be linked to.  Feel free to remove fansites.  :)  --Yamla 14:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want a comment, Doctor Who Online should stay in, if just for the fact that it's notable in organising Q&A sessions with members of the cast and production team: aside from OG, who generally has a section in their fora with the writers, nobody else does that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, of course, that if the consensus of the editors for an article is that fansites should be allowed in the article, realising that this is not normally the case, there's no problem with that.  The theory, though, is that fansites are plenty easy to find with Google, don't add anything to the article itself, and also tend to be low-quality sources of information (uncited, copyright violations, tend to come and go).  --Yamla 15:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, that's why the sites listed are those whose reliability is better than most, Outpost Gallifrey for example, and Doctor Who Online, as both have ties to the production team and/or have proven reliable sources for the series. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I thought no-one cared.  If fan-sites are not supposed to be there, we should remove them all.  It seems silly to have all these fan sites, but not have important ones like Big Finish's site! Nfitz 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big Finish is listed where it is directly relevant, on the Doctor Who spin-offs article, and the Big Finish Productions article, among others. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only one could remove the fans as well, perhaps keeping them in air-tight containers. Some might protest that they wouldn't be able to breath, but they could try, dammit, they could try.--feline1 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see Big Finish linked on the Doctor Who spin-offs article, even though fan sites are.  Though back to Wikipolicy.  It clearly states that "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.".  We are clearly and grossly violating this policy. Nfitz 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not policy, it's a guideline. As Yamla points out, it can be adjusted by consensus - look at Star Trek, for example. And if BF isn't on the spin-offs page, it should be, so add it. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technicality ... technically it's Style Guide, and it notes that "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules."  I don't see the Star Trek exanple makes sense ... we've got 3 times the number of links they have ... and two of their links seem odd ... noting their popularity in Italy?  I'd be tempted to remove some of theirs as well.  Do we have consensus?  Your arguing that they should all be there?  Is anyone else? I tried to remove one of the more rubbish ones, and you kept reverting me.Nfitz 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we have consensus to remove, certainly. And the "rubbish link" you're referring to was DWO, which is a notable site, your personal feelings about plagiarism aside. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think it's my own personal feelings; I thought it was pretty Universal, which is why you never see DWO linked from prominent sites such as BBC, The Restoration Team, Outpost Gallifrey, and most notably, Nitro 9 who list more than anyone else.  Listing it on this page here, is starting to look like Original Research Nfitz 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of an external link can't be original research. It could, potentially, be self-promotional, spam, etc. In this case, I don't think it is; the purpose of external links is to inform in a way that an encyclopedia article cannot (or more accurately, should not). I think that current links do that quite well, including the "rubbish" ones you wish to remove.--SB | T 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you do you justify so completely ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines to not providing long lists of Fan Site links?  And if your going to start justify including non-mainstream sites that aren't normally linked to, then how many will you let be added?  50?  100? 200?  1,000?  Where do you draw the line?Nfitz 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same as everywhere else - notability. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if that doesn't work, the same criteria that's being used when deciding what Star Trek fan sites to list and what fan sites not to list. 23skidoo 00:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's my point.  DWO isn't notable.  I went through every site I thought would list it if it was notable, and not one does!  Please provide link to the Star Trek criteria ... I'm not really very familiar with that show - I'm sure they've figured out something logical though. Nfitz 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that the reason DWO is absent from those listings is because it is out of favour with many influential fans — arguably, deservedly out of favour.  However, since it does have Q&As with actors and production team members, not found on other sites (although of course OG did it first), an argument can be made for its notability.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of fan sites 

message: Leave her in till she has finished her run on the show, She is still currently in it so does not need removing *yet*! Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 11:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billie in infobox 

message: I think there should be a article on "doctor who merchandise" due to the growing list of products.
82.25.122.249 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchandise