Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 8

message: The reboot page lists the new series of Doctor Who as an example of a reboot. I've disputed this on the discussion board there and have considered just deleting the reference there (to be honest it seems a little confused in places with regard to reboot, reimagining, retcon and remake but I'm going to keep out of that). As far as I'm aware the new series is not a reboot, has never been stated as a reboot and has never been treated as such. The recent mention of Gallifray, the use of the TARDIS, the appearance of Sarah-Jane Smith and K-9 and the appearance of the head of an original Cyberman (amongst a whole host of other things) places this firmly as a continuation. As far as I'm aware Russell T. Davies has never stated this to be a reboot and has said quite the opposite. I believe I am right in stating that he has made various comments that bluntly state that this is a continuation of the same universe but that he isn't going to explain everything that has happened between the old series, the film and the new series. 
So... what do you think? You can either debate it here or over there. Up to you really. Thought you'd want to know. AlanD 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there, under Spin-offs. --Ebyabe 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard the new series more accurately described as a revival than a reboot. GracieLizzie 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some justification to using this term.  It is established that a war has taken place between time-travelling races.  So events in the "classic" series need not longer be part of history.80.193.203.174 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this logic. Could you clarify please? --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a reboot at all. It's a direct continuation - the show has made several links and references to incidents and events from the "classic" series. A reboot is an effective wiping of the slate, a fresh start, and the new series does not fall under this classification. Squirminator2k 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to point out the blindingly obvious - the new series of Doctor Who is being marketed as a new series of Doctor Who. Not as a reboot, revamp, spin-off, UFO or any other kind of identified or unidentified object. I wish people would read their own words when they start these kinds of discussions. 90.152.12.130 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reboot

message: I've just added a criticisms section, the references are on the AOL Doctor Whp message board if anyone wants to add a link-GeorgeFormby1
:Removed. Message boards are not acceptable sources. CovenantD 10:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: In the latest issue of NEO Jonathan Clements discusses the dubbing and such of Who in Japan, and he mentions that apparently that the audience is rather confused as it has been aired at such a late time slot (11:55-0:42!) that they don't realise it's a family show. He also translated some comments from Japanese messageboards wherein the users say they think Billie Piper is fat and looks like a Hippo ¬_¬()... but I am not sure how relevant that is as it's just a nasty message posted by some non-notable person on the 'net, however it was reprinted by a magazine. What do you guys think? --GracieLizzie 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Billie Piper comments don't seem worthy of merit, but a short cited sentence about audience confusion about "Dokutaa Fuu" might be appropriate.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, maybe the comment on Billie Piper might be irrelivent but I think the time slot in Japan, etc.. is good.--Wiggstar69 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it, I'd misplaced my March copy of NEO so it took a while to find the reference. But I found a copy in WHSmiths today and I managed to jot down the page number and specifics. The actual sentence of 'interest' was "Broadcast in a relatively late night spot, Doctor Who has mystified adult viewers who do not realise it is a family show." -Jonathan Clements... the main body of the write-up was about the voice actors who dubbed certain characters. --GracieLizzie 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be relevent to add this to the viewship section? 

message: Come on Wiggstar69, that wasn't an appearance by the Tenth Doctor (bearded and with a Scottish accent)! And the sketch is hardly notable enough to include in the article. Stephenb (Talk) 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comic Relief

message: I put the artical under Charity episodes of doctor who, on the grounds that he used the sonic screwdriver and as iv'e mentioned under history has used a scottish accent before.
'On March 16, 2007 as part of Red Nose Dayon BBC1/2, The Tenth Doctor appeared with Catherine Tate in a short sketch in which he was teaching a class and she was an irritating student.'--Wiggstar69 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a sketch where David Tennant used the sonic screwdriver while playing a teacher with a Scottish accent, there's no real evidence that it was meant to be the Tenth Doctor, particularly by the DW production team (by which these things are usually determined). Stephenb (Talk) 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, although, having used David Tennant and having the sonic screw driver in the scetch is grounds enough to at least hold under the charity section, not as an episode but at least at a scetch which was obviously intending him to look like the doctor. On top of this may I remind you that the cloaths he was wearing were identical to those of the tenth doctor, all this is shurly enough for it to get a mention.--Wiggstar69 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His clothing was similar but far from the same. I don't think you can read too much into the sketch, it's just too silly (the sonic screwdriver having a "turn people into Rose Tyler action figures" setting? I know the Master had a device which did something vaugely similar but it didn't turn people into dolls of other people). However I am in half a mind as to whether to mention it here, it doesn't feature the Doctor perse and cannot be really fit into canon at all... I have mentioned it on the Doctor Who spoofs page though. --GracieLizzie 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sketch is as GracieLizzie put it, 'silly' and obviously was never intended to be anything other then exactly that, but as iv'e metioned (the above) there are enough connections beetween this scetch and Doctor Who to at least hold a place under the charity 'or' spoof section of this page.--Wiggstar69 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I am two minds, one part of me thinks "Mr. Logan almost certainly wasn't the Doctor so we can't include it!" the other half of me thinks "But it referenced Doctor Who in many ways, and therefore should be mentioned". So I am having a hard time being clear-cut about this. --GracieLizzie 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen it, but going on your descriptions, it doesn't sound quite "Who-ish" enough for the "Charity episodes" section - not on a par with Dimensions in Time, Curse of Fatal Death or the mini-episode, but it sounds like there are enough references to mention it on the Doctor Who spoofs page. I'd put it in that article rather than here. --Brian Olsen 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been put onto the Doctor Who spoofs page thanks to GracieLizzie. The question is is it sutable to take it further onto the main page. May I remind you this has been done with many other similar spoof/Charity, episode/sketch's. So I feel it would fit comfotably in with them.--Wiggstar69 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO "Doctor Who has been satirised and spoofed on many occasions by comedians" is sufficient, esp as it is mentioned on the spoofs page. Notwithstanding, this was (IMO) most definitely not a charity episode, for the reason it was one in a series of several Catherine Tate sketches with different celebrity guests. It was therefore a Catherine Tate special, not a DW special (and, for that reason - even starring Tenant - did not have to make sense as a DW episode). Ros0709 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In taking a look at the description of the sketch on the spoof page, I would say no, it definitely doesn't belong on the main page. The whole purpose of spinning off a page is to cut down on the size of the main article, and this doesn't seem notable enough to merit an exception. --Brian Olsen 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats is fair enough, enough people have expressed a dislike to this small section and its probably (in the long run) not going to be a huge matter of interest.--Wiggstar69 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RND Charity Spoof 

message: I don't know about anyone else, but this page seems to be getting a bit too long maybe its time for another Archive?--Wiggstar69 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this WP:WHO's, and List of Doctor Who serials's talk pages are getting a bit long. I think it could be time for an archive too. --GracieLizzie 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: One of the prime reasons for people visiting the Doctor Who page is to get a List of episodes and serials -- this is now carefully hidden halfway down the page under the cryptic caption "Format". Could either a link be placed near the top of the page, or the title "Format" be replaced with something like "Format and episodes" so that people know where to look in the page. Rnt20 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of episodes and serials 

message: Beginning in the 2007 episode Smith and Jones, Freema Agyeman will play Martha Jones, the Doctor's next ongoing companion.[26] Apart from her name, the casting of family members and the information that she will be a medical student, no details are currently available about her character.
There's a bit more on this which can be gleaned from the trailer now on the BBC website, plus the link itself may be of interest to the reader. Trouble is, some of the BBC content is UK-only, so would someone outside of the UK like to confirm it works for them?
main page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/ :: 
trailer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/index_trailer.shtml
Ros0709 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 3 trailer 

message: An anonymous editor added "It has been reported that in 1972 all episodes then made were known to exist at the BBC, whilst by 1978 the practice of wiping tapes had ended.", which is quite a bold claim, and has no reference to the report cited. I have tagged these claims as needing citation, and would suggest that this text is removed completely if it cannot be substantiated.
:I have provided a source- an article on the Doctor Who Restoration Team's website.Pawnkingthree 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's disputing that only Hartnell and Troughton were made in black and white, but that wasn't what was being said. It was that three Doctors-- Hartnell, Troughton and Pertwee-- were affected by the junking of episodes. Pawnkingthree 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Episodes

message: "The airing of The Talons of Weng Chiang resulted in controversy for TVOntario as a result of accusations that the story was racist. Consequently the story was not rebroadcast. CBC began showing the series again in 2005" - the final sentence is unclear. Was Doctor Who as a whole repeated in 2005? Or the new series with Eccleston? Or just Talons of Weng Chiang?. Could any Canadians here please clear this vagueness up? Totnesmartin 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity needed here 

message: Take a look at the programme description used for Doctor Who at vuze.com: "...the adventures of a mysterious time-traveller known as "the Doctor", who explores time and space with his companions, solving problems and righting wrongs..."  Sound familiar? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another BBC partner uses this article's summary... 

message: There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes 

message: Radio Times currently have all the covers showing Doctor Who  so I've put this in Media links - hope this meets with approval. Don't know how long this will last on the RT website (so please monitor) but a useful image resource all the same ..... Zir 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio Times link

message: As per the Manual of Style, series names are italicized (Doctor Who) and episode names are double-quoted ("Rose").  However, there are a few ambiguities raised by this:
1) What about story names?  In the older half-hour serial format, several episodes make up a story, e.g. 'The Talons of Weng-Chiang' was literally six episodes long, each unnamed here.  Since 1996, Doctor Who episodes are named and (usually) uncontinued, each forming it's own story.  I suggest that we adopt the convention of formating story names like episodes, thus "The Talons of Weng-Chiang".
2) Are non-canon one-shots considered episodes, stories, or their own series for the purposes of formatting?  I suggest the latter, e.g. The Curse of Fatal Death.  
Dmforcier 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there is already a discussion about some of this at the project level. Dmforcier 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting issues 

message: I check the "History" listings on this article every day, and it appears to have vandalism posted and undone that often. I submit that this article should be given the protected status that was recently given to The Green Hornet to prevent such actions from being done in the first place. Ted Watson 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say post a request for protection because it really is just getting ridiculous. The amount of IP vandalism this article gets should surely qualify it for semi-protection. Leeson 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the request, for full protection, yesterrday, and just found that it had been turned down by Steel359 on the grounds that "vandalism level isn't consistently high." Don't know how he came to that conclusion, and just posted a request on his talk page for an explanation. We'll see what happens next. Ted Watson 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism isn't consistently high for the full protection requested. Unmitigated tabloid fodder (  ), self-promotion (), inappropriate and disruptive content (), opinion () and various other disruptions from the majority of IP edits, yes. However, if one looks at the protection policy, this is not in need of full protection. The most that could logically be asked for is semi-protection, and even then it possibly wouldn't be taken as seriously now that a request for protection has been declined. Leeson 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Against Vandalism 

message: Simple question, not-so-simple answer (I suspect). When linking names such as the Doctor or the Master, which should we link: "the Doctor" or "the Doctor"? The former looks incorrect, and would only make sense (IMHO) if we were using "The Doctor" (capitalized) in all situations. This sprang up over an edit I made at the Utopia article, but it is probably better to discuss it here for a wider audience. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 08:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the project page. I have no preference. --Jamdav86 19:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking names 

message: It says at the bottom of the first section of the page that Matha Jones is definitly coming back for the 4th Series, as far as I knew this wasn't confirmed, am I wrong? --Wiggstar69 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are wrong-- certainly the source quoted doesn't mention her. I've removed it until someone can come up with a source for this. Pawnkingthree 19:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC3 news (just on after a Dr Who repeat about 10 minutes ago) said that Freema is taking a break to let another companion take over, but the way it sounded was that she wouldn't be in a few episodes of the 4th series...not that she wouldn't be in it at all.  I don't know if there's a stream of the news anywhere or not, could someone find it if it's there?  SmUX 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement? 

message: I corrected the spelling in one of the four links newly added to the General Information section:
* Doctor Who Online 
** Doctor Who Online reference 
* TARDIS Online 
** TARDIS Online - Doctor Who History 
However, I notice that the page source contains the comment "additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted". I have not removed these links but am starting the discussion on behalf of the anonymous editor who put them in. The initial suggestion is: these links should be removed. Would anyone care to speak up for them? Ros0709 07:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed the links as that appears to be the page policy, and no-one has defended them. Ros0709 11:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Information links 

message: At 19:16 19 June, I changed the stated number of total Star Trek episodes from 726 to 718, as per the counts found on the Internet Movie Database. At 22:20, "Ck" reverted with the explanatory note, "many long discussions on talks of here and star trek." As I merely made an already given number more accurate, and this person merely restored the earlier number, I see no relevance of the comment to the reversion of my edit. There is no comparison of the relative merits of the two shows or anything whatsoever like that here, which is the only kind of meaning I can make out of Ck's statement. I provided the numbers on a series-by-series breakdown, in chronological order---there was, of course, no room to make that explicitly clear, but what else could anyone think those numbers were, given the specified context?---which makes challenging them in and of themselves difficult, but, again, that was not the indicated reason (BTW, subsequent consideration has rendered my original suggestion that the longer number here counted two-hour special episodes as two-parters/two episodes, as they have been shown in the respective rerun packages, while the IMDb counted them as one each, not workable as I can remember SEVEN such specials for certain {I can individually identify each and every one of them, if you insist}, which would make a difference of fourteen rather than the actual eight in the counts). I request a clear justification for the reversion. Thank you. Ted Watson 21:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - yeah - sorry about inaccurate edit summary. Previous discussions in sections such as Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6#Overtaking Star Trek and Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6#Longest-running, revisited have reached a consensus about the comparative lengths of the two shows. The list of Star Trek episodes on the Star Trek page (in the infobox) sums to 726, as discussed at (at least) Talk:Star Trek#Number of episodes and Talk:Star Trek/Archive1#TV shows. Please discuss further on the Star Trek talk page. Sorry if the edit summary was a bit brief - but I hope this explanation is sufficient. Oh, and it's Lostsword :) ck lostsword •  T  •  C  21:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, my most humble apologies for messing up your name. This is all quite "sufficient," except that I'll have to see what I can do about absolute confirmation of the overall Trek episode count. But don't misunderstand that as, yes, I do indeed now see where you're coming from. Ted Watson 19:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you want me to go back in and check two-hour specials considered to be two episodes (which would be fair enough and is definitely how they count there) and adjust the number accordingly, Trek 's total is 725 episodes according to startrek.com, run by Paramount itself (oddly enough, IMDb's Enterprise count of 92 is fully five episodes short, and Next Gen 's 176 is two short, while DS9 and Voyager match exactly; I know if I try to change those first two, they won't do it because they are all but ignoring a series' overall page in favor of the individual episodes' pages). I say this because I checked those Talk page links you posted, and there was no discussion of just what the number per se should be (other than a very brief debate of whether the 22 cartoon shows should be included, and canon or not, quality or not, they are official TV episodes with real Trek actors and writers involved), and that is the issue between us. Ted Watson 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respects to Pawnkingthree, all we're trying to do is get the Trek episode count correct, differences in total amount of material produced not being involved. I have been to startrek.com again, and now have numbers as definitive as possible. Count two hour specials rerun as two-parters as two episodes each---725. Count them as one episode each---715. The only way to come up with a different number is to count the three occasions that the US network, UPN, ran two unrelated episodes of Enterprise back to back as if they were two-hour specials, one episode each (which I feel is wrong as these are pairs of separate episodes), and then the number is 712. Can't get anything else without being inconsistent---which I must admit that the website in question was, as you had to click on the Enterprise debut episode and go in for explicit details to find that it was a two-hour apecial, which I happened to remember from watching the original telecast. It's not that way for the other two-hour specials, for which you'll find two entries each, "Part I" and "Part II." Anyway, that's it: 725, 715, or inadvisably, 712. Wait, I just remembered a way to get 726. One week after Next Generation 's finale, there was a documentary that did turn up in the syndicated rerun package, at least initially; don't know if it's still there are not, but it was, and that would give a count of 726. Have to admit that I don't like including it, though. Ted Watson 19:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek episode count--Revert? 

message: This section really need to be cleaned up. Wikipedia isn't a links repository. I did do a mass deletion. Please look at them before re-adding them, they don't add to the article. GreenJoe 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Outpost Gallifrey is the largest Doctor Who site out there. Alientraveller 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss before doing mass deletion and please don't swear in edit summaries.AlanD 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't swear. I probably mis-spelled the word assess. WP:AGF. Most of those links don't need to be there, so I'm certainly happy to discuss it. GreenJoe 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of them are really good though, so it'd be better to absorb them as citations rather than delete them. Alientraveller 20:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Radio Times (BBC), the British Film Institute and Outpost Gallifrey should stay as links, given that they are notable. I can't speak for the others, but please don't take that as a comment on their suitability. Is there any way to identify if they are used as sources in the article? --Ckatzchatspy 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are used a a source, they should be as an in-line citation. How is Outpost Gallifrey notable? I saw nothing special when I visited that site. GreenJoe 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Like he said, iut's the largest Who site out there, and is referenced in most of the Doctor Who magazines and stuff. Radio times is definitely relevant, as is doctor who cuttings. The general information ones probably can go (apart from OG). Production ones are useful, and reference guide might be. mattbuck 21:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outpost Gallifrey has also been referred to in the popular media many times (have you read the article about the site on Wikipedia? It's the only DW fan site with its own page.) Plus, Steven Moffat recently admitted that an injoke in his episode "Blink" was aimed at their users. We know the production team (including RTD) and even the actors like David Tennant read it; OG deserves to be there simply because it's the only fan website that's actually had an impact ON the show.--217.36.21.82 20:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to know why a simple statement about what OG actually is has been removed? Yet other websites have descriptive text attached to them. I think it's Good Faith to leave SOME sort of descriptor if you're going to include it (which I agree with doing).--217.36.21.82 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Sorry about adding the websites The Tardis Technical Index and Rassilon,Omega,and that Other Guy.I had`nt  visited the other sites at the time.(TARDIS and Regeneration).If I see any more interesting websites I`ll ask about them first before I add them to any Doctor Who sites. Would it be OK to list "Who`s Next An Unofficial and Unauthorised Guide to Doctor Who"and if so on which site.It is an episode guidebook to the Classic Series.This is the first time I have discussed anything online.Please be patient because I can`t type very fast. Kathleen.wright5 08:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Websites mistake

message: I have reversed some vandalism at the Doctor Who Magazine site. Kathleen.wright5 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Revert

message: I live in Australia and I love watching Doctor Who on ABC, but there are too many spoilers in the articles. Is it possible to remove them? --Pezzar 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible for you not to read them?Mmm commentaries 00:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia contains spoilers. When reading articles about Doctor Who episodes or characters, it is only to be expected that plot details will be made explicit; editing information out for the benefit of those who have not seen certain episodes would impair Wikipedia's ability to properly discuss the show. --Kwekubo 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers for overseas readers 

message: This list was getting very long so i've made it a scroll down list to use up less space.--Wiggstar69 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes list 

message: Just wondering why the article has been semi-protected as there doesn't seem to have been a huge amount of vandalism relatively speaking. I'm not wanting to start an argument (otherwise I'd have reverted) I was just wondering why, that was all.AlanD 22:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had six quite similar incidents of vandalism from three IPs over the course of 12 hours (plus one to the talk page); that's a little more concerted than usual for this article.  As such, I requested protection; whichever admin dealt with the case must have agreed it was warranted. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I'm not suggesting we put this in the article, but I believe the hiatus is due to David Tennant's work in theatre clashing with series five filming. It would have been filmed in mid-late 2008 which is when Tennant takes up the lead role in Hamlet. He's devoted to the show and would probably not want to leave the show. Xdt 17:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly a "hiatus" anyway because there will still be three episodes in 2009. I don't think this section is necessary as it's already mentioned in the introduction. Pawnkingthree 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but the article had it as hiatus and I'm just pointing something out. It's original research though, but I just wondered if anyone agreed. Xdt 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 hiatus

message: hello,
I would like to make some changes to the doctor who page as there are a few errors for example the sitheen are not a new speicies of alien that is their surname (eg.if an alein was called joe blow would his speicies therefore be called the blows? i dont think so.I very much hope you consider my proposal.
yours sinserly
Linx the sontaran
Linx the sontaran 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this page currently prevents IPs and new users from editing, due to a recent spate of IP vandalism.  However, if you wish to make changes to the page, simply address it on this discussion page, and other editors will consider your suggestions. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously, I hadn't had enough coffee when I read your proposal.  I have made a change that addresses your concern. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re avalabilise editing 

message: in britan, one does not talk of seasons, one speaks of series.  It is my opinion that the wikipedia doctor who entries should reflect that. also how does one diffrentiate between the new and the old doctor whos?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.39.90 (talk) 18:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC) 
:I think we tend to follow the BBC website in this regard, using "season" for the original series (sometimes called "the classic series") and "series" for the revived series.  Personally, I've been using "season" to describe various years of Doctor Who for what must be over two decades, and I've lived in the UK all my life. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep — reliable UK sources have been using "season" for years of Doctor Who since at least the 1980s (with the Doctor Who Programme Guide, published by Target Books).  As Mark points out, the BBC's website uses "season" to refer to the 1963–89 show (see here) and "series" to refer to the new one (2005–) (see Mark's link above).  So "Season 3" refers to the 1965–66 run of episodes, and "Series 3" refers to the recently completed 2006 run.  That's the usage we follow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  major changes should be employed 

message: Why is there a picture of Martha in the companion section?  What makes her any more deserving of a picture than the dozens of other companions.  Just because she's the latest companion does not make her more notable.  If any companion should have a picture, I would have thought it would be Rose or Sarah Jane.  If nobody disagrees, I'll remove this image from this page.  Paul730 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by the logic of 'recentism is importantism', the ten Doctors image should be Tennant only. Recentism, as you've already linked to, is not the goal of Wikipedia. Purge it. Leeson 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I've just done that.  No individual companion is discussed in any great detail in that section, so it's doubtful that any particular companion need be illustrated, particularly by non-free content. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :) The latest characters/actors (Martha, Donna, Kylie, Tennant) are also mentioned significantly in the lead section.  I thought leads were only supposed to summarise the article, so is this recentism as well?  Paul730 09:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly widespread practice to have news of future broadcasts in the article lead of an ongoing series in order to indicate that there's more to come (likewise, defunct series will indicate when they ended).  Though it's possible there's too much detail there at present. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 09:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Martha?

message: The article is more than 2.5 times the size of the typical set for an article of readability (32kb). There's a large amount of information that is available on the  main pages of various articles and many sections would benefit from conciseness. In many cases, a section is rather sizeable and contains a link to a main article or category. I propose that some of the sections are made more concise or are removed with a link to their main article under See Also. This would decrease the size of the article while still keeping information inclusive. -Leeson  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size and Readability 

message: One user, Wolf of Fenric has posted an article, The Castellan, but it is limited to the appearances in Arc of Infinity and The Five Doctors and actor Paul Jerricho. He seems unaware that it is a title not a name, and that it was previously held/played by others in The Deadly Assassin and The Invasion of Time. Somebody with a greater grip on those stories than I ("Invasion" more so than the other) needs to rewrite that article. Just a heads up. Ted Watson 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite Digby Tantrum's attempt to replace this article with a redirect to Arc of Infinity, it remains in place. The intro passage acknowledges the existence of the two Castellans seen in the earlier stories, and specifies their names, but remains focused on the unnamed Castellan of the two later stories. I feel that this is wrong, and that the other two should also be dealt with in detail, but as I haven't seen Invasion of Time in years, that one I can't do a decent job of writing up. I repeat my request that someone with sufficient knowledge of these two stories add sections covering their respective Castellans, as adding one but not the other would look really strange. Ted Watson 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article "The Castellan" needs a major rewrite