Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 15

message: Has anyone considered including articles nominated for deletion that are of interest to this WikiProject in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Sorting 

message: I've recreated Stuart Fell - the previous version was speedied as nonsense. This one isn't. Totnesmartin 19:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation of deleted article 

message: Hi,
I have added a part titled "Clom Continuity Reference" to the Love & Monsters discussion page, but no-one has said anything about it yet. I just want to see if anyone agrees with the below to decide if part of the article's continuity should be removed. So you don't have to bother to go to the discussion page, I have pasted it in below:
If I remember correctly, Clom is actually Raxacoricofallapatorius' twin planet, therefore there is all possibility that The Doctor and Rose have never heard of it! For example, Mondas is Earth's twin planet, only because they were extremely similar to each other, not because they were close to each other... Anybody agree so this can be removed from the article? --Ed the Penguin 11:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like original research to me. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it is. :) - NP Chilla 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love & Monsters - Clom continuity issue 

message: I asked on the Template if we could move the spin-off related material to a separate section on the template, but no-one has replied.  Anyone think we should do this? StuartDD 14:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Universe section on [[Template:Doctor Who]] 

message: I was quite shocked to see that The Edge of Destruction and The Keys of Marinus don't have screencaps. Could someone add them?(81.77.195.85 18:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Wolf of Fenric 20:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also done The Space Pirates, "Fear Her" and "Evolution of the Daleks" that were also similarly lacking. Wolf of Fenric 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Images

message: I was making some edits to The Chase, and discovered that the popular story that the clip from that serial of the Beatles on Top of the Pops peforming "Ticket to Ride" is the only surviving footage of them from that show is untrue - you can go to the BBC's web page for Top of the Pops and watch a clip of them performing "I Feel Fine". I've removed it from The Chase, but I think that bit of trivia appears on a few different pages, although I can't rememeber which. I just mention it here so that it'll be in folks' heads - if you see it anywhere, it should be removed. --Brian Olsen 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the fan lore on this should be specific, that the footage in The Chase is the only surviving clip from that particular edition of Top of the Pops. But that is not interesting enough to be worth recording, so your edit is sensible.Nwhyte 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles on Top of the Pops 

message: I've made a page for Absolution (Doctor Who). Could we wait until a image is released until the page for the girl who never was is made?(Black Dalek 13:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolution

message: Just asking, could someone please tell how do I report someone for vandilism. Once answeared you may remove this message. Victory93 27/8/07  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victory93 (talk • contribs) 09:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC) 
:Over here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. (Just to add context to those not familiar with the dispute, Victory93 wishes to report me for removing video games from Doctor Who story chronology.) --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VistasV, you can't report soemone for vandalism if they edits they make are not vandalism.  It's a little ironic when you were making constant vadnalism edits in renaming Doctor Who "the movie" after being specifically told not to several times, and barred from editing.  Since the general concensus on the talk page was not to include the games, I would suggest that it is YOU doing the vandalism this time as well. StuartDD 10:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: There is a proposal on Doctor Who story chronology to change the title to Timeline of the Doctor (Doctor Who) — feel free to leave comments on the talk page.  StuartDD 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doctor Who story chronology]] renaming 

message: Drax (Doctor Who) has been nominated for deletion.  Those wishing to participate in the discussion may find it here. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drax (Doctor Who)]] 

message: Big Finish Doctor Who chronology had been PRODded as an obsolete page. just letting you know.--OZOO (What?) 12:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the prod, not because I necessarily disagree that it's now obsolete, but because I think that an argument for its retention could be made, and I think it merits discussion.  I don't much care whether that discussion takes place on the article's talk page or at AfD. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Josiah Rowe, i've AFD'd the page. --OZOO (What?) 19:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New 
PROD
 AFD

message: I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probally invlove merging several of the books and audios, as most of them have only a few lines on them.  Most of them are just:
"page Tilte" is a book/ audio based on the television series.  

Some of the characters would probally also have to be merged.
I would assume that the episode pages could stay individual pages, as most of them have several ouside sources to reference them.
StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 20:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The three articles that immediately come to mind are planets, items and vehicles.  One example on the new guide is:"The Xenosaga lists on planets, terms, and organizations had no chance of showing notability, so they were transwikied to the Xenosaga Wikia and redirected to the main Xenosaga page."These pages would probally have to be dealt with in the same way.The only other ones I can think of (on the Template) that may be affected are the companion and spin-off companion pages.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 16:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guideline on fiction: Delete Doctor Who-related articles? 

message: I'd like to draw people's attention to an issue with the article on Freema Agyeman (here).  If anyone does have extra sources on her, that would be great. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP of interest to [[WP:WHO]] 

message: I asked on the  books talk page a while ago if we should merge this into the Doctor Who template.  No-one has replied.  Anyone think we should do this? StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be merged - the main template is looking rather bloated to me. I think it should probably be trimmed somewhat, rather than added to. --Brian Olsen 17:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge closed - opposed. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Doctor Who books]] 

message: For your consideration: Deletion review.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image [[Paul McGann]] on Deletion Review 

message: Thanks to Infophile for putting the style guide together.
The only part I disagree on is calling "The Five Doctors" a special episode. To me, it's a special story (or even serial, even though it's only one part). An episode is clearly subordinate to a story; a one-off that's complete in itself is both a story and an episode, but it's more appropriate to refer to it as a story. (A "special episode" might be one like Trial of a Time Lord episode 14, which was specially lengthened to a gruelling 35 minutes).
Any objections to changing this to "story"? Wwhyte 11:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the 20th anniversary special.  So, yes, I object. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I was saying that I don't think it's right to call it a special *epsiode*. I'm fine with calling it a story or simply a special. Maybe the best thing to do is simply remove "or special episode" from the relevant part of the style guide. Any objections to that? Wwhyte 13:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that (just using "special"). In fact, that's what I'd originally planned to put in, but when I saw the use of "special episode" in a few places, I decided to add it in too. Maybe it's better to just use one term, though. Of course, we might also be able to fit in "special episode" for stories that are closer to normal episode length. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'll have a shot at rephrasing it. Wwhyte 14:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks alright, now we just have to go through and implement it (assuming no one has any further concerns). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We talked about this one before, and the consensus was to use italics given that: 1. It's the length of a film, which all use italics, and 2. It's often rebroadcast in parts, as if it were a serial, which also use italics. For specials we'll have to use our own judgment in many cases. So far, the new series specials are both close to episodes, but I hear that instead of a series in 2009 they'll be doing 3 specials, and those could well end up being longer. If we find that out, we might want to consider going with italics for them, but that's a discussion for the far future. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Special episodes

message: Okay the style guide currently covers almost everything, except Mission to the Unknown. Is it an "episode" or a "serial"? This isn't being pedantic for the sake of it but wanting to have clarity over how it's referenced in articles and everything. Timrollpickering 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not surprising that would come up. Even the official sources seem to jump through hoops to avoid classifying it. I think we can all agree that it's an episode, and just leave it at that in all references to it. By definition, a serial has to have more than one episode to it. Maybe you could make a case for "special episode," though. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this in turn creates problems for the serial numbering system in use (which is a little dubious as it's presenting one side of what can be a heated argument as consensus) since it relies on Mission being number 19. Erm... Timrollpickering 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the same numbering system has been extended to new series episodes and the TVM, I doubt it's that much of a problem. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, we should probably just refer to that numbering system as "story numbering," since in any case it contains more than serials now. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a single episode serial, or a single episode story - and with the single episodes of the new sereis.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we use the episode or story conventions vis a vis italicisation and everything when referring to it? Timrollpickering 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the episode convention (parentheses). We do that for longer single-episode stories in the new season, and I don't think Mission's placement back in the classic series alone merits it an exception. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invariably: Mission

message: Just to close this off, http://members.fortunecity.com/tylorhan/wmd.html claims that the Doctor Who Programme Guide originated the use of "season" against "series". It might be interesting to include a historical note somewhere about this, to explain that the reason why we tend to use "season" is because the first book that split groups of stories up by year was written by someone who spoke North American English.
Wwhyte 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a reliable enough source to put this in an article, but if you mean just in the style guide so people know why we do this, I think that should be fine. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical origin of "season"

message: Someone has created Template:Slitheen Stories.  I thought that this was deleted previously.  Should we have this template?  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this was previously deleted (see discussion at TfD, so probably qualifies for a speedy delete. Gwinva 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and tagged it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame, "Aliens of London" / "World War Three", "Dalek", "Boom Town", Attack of the Graske, "Human Nature" / "The Family of Blood" and Revenge of the Slitheen - not enough to warrant a template? Wolf of Fenric 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Most of those are just continuity nods; all we really have are two stories which prominently feature the Slitheen (on the show, at least), and those were separated by a couple episodes. They're in a completely different ballpark from the Doctor's recurring nemeses such as the Daleks, Cybermen, and the Master, whose appearances span many seasons of the show. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I understood their lack of Doctor Who appearances to be the reason behind the template's deletion the first time, along with the deletion of those I created for other recurring monsters like the Yeti and the Macra. However, I reintroduced the Slitheen one as they now span Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures - thinking of younger readers it may be useful to link from Revenge of the Slitheen to the Slitheen's previous appearances, although I suppose this will be included in the body of the article in time. Wolf of Fenric 19:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now added it as a continuity statement. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 20:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. At least the information is there now. Wolf of Fenric 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slitheen Stories? 

message: For those interested - there are now full lists of filled-in citation templates for every episode of the old and new series. The main page is at WP:WHO NOTES, with links to the page for each Doctor. All you need to do is copy and paste the text for the episode you want to cite. Even though these are primary sources, they should still be cited properly; my hope is that this will encourage people to cite facts more, as most every article but those listed as "featured" or "good" lack adequate references. --Brian Olsen 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing episodes and serials

message: The article Exiting Worlds (Torchwood) if up for deletion due to being completely unsourced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exiting Worlds (Torchwood).  — Edokter • Talk •  20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Exiting Worlds (Torchwood)]] up for AfD 

message: Please see the following discussion regarding a section of the Companion (Doctor Who) article. Wolf of Fenric 17:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading list

message: Could someone please explain why the story articles contain such large white spaces, such that the first paragraph aligns with the bottom of the infobox on the right of the page? It makes pages more difficult to read and if it is not in accordance with some Wikipedia convention that I am unaware of, could these be removed? Wolf of Fenric 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got an example? I still see anything neatly wrapped around the infobox?  — Edokter • Talk •  23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some appear to have been fixed since I posted that, but still problematic - The Daleks, Marco Polo, The Aztecs, The Sensorites, The Reign of Terror, Planet of Giants and more... Wolf of Fenric 06:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see. It's the combination of the Table of Content and the infobox. Actually the infobox in uninvolved. The ToC however doesn't allow text to sit next to it, so the next section always starts below the ToC.  — Edokter • Talk •  09:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for that. Wolf of Fenric 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot gaps

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.
StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Doctor Who season 1}}]]

message: Wolf of Fenric has started to move all episode images to the left of the Plot sections. The MOS states images should be on the right, and moved down if they interfere with the infobox. I've asked him to stop and discuss it here first.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to have reverted his edits.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I was unaware of the convention. It is a shame. Looks a lot better with the images on the left. No gaps. When I have time, I'll try and fix up moving some plot paragraphs up to fill the gaps. Wolf of Fenric 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question: what is your screen resolution? Most article I see (at 1024x768) son't have any "gap" problem.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1280 by 800, widescreen. Currently, for example, after the word Plot on The Five Doctors the gap lasts to the end of the info box. And the same for "Last of the Time Lords", (the latter of which comes after my messing which stopped at "Love & Monsters" when you notified me of my error). Wolf of Fenric 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've moved them down a bit. How does that look?  — Edokter • Talk •  01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit better. I've just done the First Doctor stories, (An Unearthly Child to The Tenth Planet). Have a look at how it appears to you. I believe I have got rid of the gaps there. I can't do anymore tonight, but I'll try and do the rest soon if they are OK. Wolf of Fenric 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All images are being moved to the left 

message: * 14 September 2007 - expires 19 September
** Martha in the Mirror (PROD by User:Rambutan; infobox only article) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: Where a companion appears more than once, what's wrong with having a link in each reference?  The subsequent ones keep on getting removed--is there a "overlinks" policy I should be aware of?  It looks better aesthetically if each one is linked.  It doesn't imply at all (as someone put forward) that there are 2 companions with the same name.  What's with this issue? Metebelis 01:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manual of Style recommends only wikilinking the first time it's mentioned in the article. =David(talk)(contribs) 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand this in the text body.  But in a template box? Metebelis 02:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same rule, I think. Wolf of Fenric 07:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the same rule, but the MoS is a guideline, not a policy, so we can go against it if there's a good enough reason to do so. In this case, I think that might actually be the case. Aesthetics of templates might be a sufficient reason, since most of the time style is just about aesthetics anyways. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if to the casual reader it implies that the Tenth Doctor was accompanied by 2 Donnas for example? Wolf of Fenric 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think many people are likely to jump to that conclusion, though it is a remote possibility. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinks on companion templates