Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 14

message: This probably isnt the right place but whatever happened to Khaosworks? I havent seen him around in a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.41.116 (talk • contribs) 
:I took a peek at his contributions page - he's around, editing Who articles as always. He just doesn't seem to be as vocal on the talk pages as he used to be, unfortunately. --Brian Olsen 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Khaosworks 

message: Hi, I’ve made a proposal here, about fan-cr*p on Doctor Who articles in the wake of a broadcast. Any opinions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mean to sound so rude, condescending or anything, but I'm actually going to agree with everyone on that page. You have kind of jumped the gun here. I strongly suggest you have a look around all the other television episode articles (not just Doctor Who's), and especially their edit histories, and check out what they did there. Yes, we are here to improve the Doctor Who articles, but this group can always do with more editors. Nurture the newbies, please; invite them here, and we'll (collectively) train them up. --JB Adder | Talk 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan-cr*p

message: Over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Doctor_Who_templates we seem to be getting a little out of hand - what originally started as just templates for reasonable things, like Cybermen, Daleks, the Master, Regeneration stories and Gallifrey, have now spread into 'Peladon stories', 'Macra stories', 'Mara stories', 'Lady Cassandra stories', 'Guardian television stories', 'Davros stories', 'Cat People stories' and 'New Earth stories', the last two of which are identical anyway.
And could we start populating the item lists and main articles with the Doctorwhoitem template, which currently is I think only in use on Hand of Omega?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236  (talk • contribs) 
: Yeah, they all seem to be the brainchildren of this Wolf of Fenric character. Take it up with him. You're right, though; it's getting ridiculous. It's not even just the clutter; it's also that they're poorly executed.
:I guess we need some kind of guidelines here. One: how many significant appearances must something have before demanding its own infobox? I'd say any less than half a dozen is really pressing it. I'm not entirely convinced that the Sontarans, Slitheen, or Davros have appeared enough to require a special list -- however significant they might be. They're certainly at the lower limit, however. Two: keep them all to the same damned format. It just looks sloppy, having the varied widths all lumped together. Aderack 13:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think these templates should be limited to things with multiple appearances in the series (not spin-offs): Daleks, Cybermen, UNIT, the Master...maybe Davros. Articles where the text itself won't allow you to easily find all the other relevant articles...unlike, say, "New Earth stories." Does someone have the time and the know-how to list all these for deletion? They've already been rejected for speedy deletion. --Brian Olsen 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of them have now been listed at TfD.  Check no more need listing and join the discussion. Gwinva 16:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "_______" television stories templates 

message: There is currently an edit war taking place on Doctor (Doctor Who) about whether the infobox should list him as definitively a "Time Lord /Human Hybrid", as simply a Time Lord, or (as I would argue) Time Lord but possibly half human, with a note referring to the article's discussion of the half human reference. Is there a way the larger WP DW community can resolve this, or does it need to go to mediation? -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half Human controversy 

message: The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles.  There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements.  Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes.  We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page.  After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles.  See: Wikipedia:Television article review process.  We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage.  Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode coverage

message: Disciples of Light was created this morning. Totnesmartin 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: I'm just a dumb American so I had no where else to turn but to you guys for help. I have heard that Edward Tudor-Pole (who was never in Doctor Who... sorry) is related to the Tudor royal family. Obviously this is either an indirect relation (i.e. the Pole Family changed it's name to Tudor-Pole after some guy married a Tudor cousin) or the relation is through a bastard child. I can't find a citable source on this in google. Clearly, there seems to be a Tudor Pole family that is related to Henry VIII ( regardless of whether Ed is one of those Tudor-Poles or not) but I can't prove that either. Can anyone give me any help with this. Thanks.--Dr who1975 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Edward Tudor-Pole]]

message: FYI, Doctor Who: Podshock was WP:PRODed by someone. 132.205.44.5 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a look...main concern seems to be notability.  Need a few more sources to establish notability.. Anything from DWM or even the BBC?  Alternatively, it could be merged with Outpost Gallifrey, since that is its home. I've removed the prod since this is not uncontroversial, but it may still be listed for AfD. Gwinva 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to procedure, AfD must follow a contested prod, so watch the WP:AFD page for a while. Totnesmartin 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. The user who first Prodded it has every right to change their mind after it's been contested, and so nothing obligates them to propose deletion of an article they no longer believe should be deleted. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI [[Doctor Who: Podshock]] prodded 

message: A number of "Doctor Who: Television stories" episodes have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 27#Doctor Who television stories. Laïka 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. See a few sections above at "_______" television stories templates for discussion. (BTW how do you #link a "_______" ?) Gwinva 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for deletion 

message: Hi guys, I'm working on the Jack Harkness article (because I want to get it to GA) and I need to know a citation. Can anybody source this to a specific issue, segment etc.?  format, if possible. 
Thanks everyone! :D ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DWM readers needed 

message: Might I suggest that a tighter set of rules be implemented as to what is an outsisde reference and what is not?  Many of these sections, especially on Torchwood eps, basically call anything that kind of fits some part of the ep an "outside reference".  for example, Combat had "this is like Land of the Dead because people put zombies in cages and fight them", which is ridiculous, because at that point you might as well add in any MMA fighting-related thing, when in actuality, it may have nothing to do with the ep.  Now I realize that the section is subjective, but maybe at least limit it to the obvious? MSJapan 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tighter set of rules is fine, though I notice Speed Air Man has removed the Outside references section on Last of the Time Lords completely several times, mentioning WP:TRIVIA in the edit summary. Thoughts? 
TransUtopian 13:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "outside references" sections 

message: Firstly, sorry if this has come up before.
Should the title of the 1996 fim be put in quotes or italics. I know we use italics for serials and quotes for individual episodes, but which one for the film?
Same question about The Five Doctors. --OZOO (vote saxon) 09:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Films and TV movies always take italics, so certainly Doctor Who (1996 film).  Personally, since it's feature length, and had a special release (ie. not part of regualar season programming schedule) I'd class it as a film (The Five Doctors).  However, the page itself calls it an episode, which'll make it "The Five Doctors".  What do others think? Gwinva 10:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd classify The Five Doctors as a film, but serials take the same format anyway. Given its length, I'd personally classify it as being a serial combined into one episode or somesuch. But whether it's a serial or movie, italics is proper. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Five Doctors was always planned for television (not theatrical release), and it was broadcast as multiple episodes at some point (at least in the US market), so it's definitely an italicized serial, but it has no basis to be called a film. MSJapan 15:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This was always going to be a tricky one under the quotes vs guidelines rules. As Infophile points out it is hard to classify it as a film as it wasn't called that at the time of its original airing (unlike the 96 TV film). But as Gwinva points it it was a feature length special release. One other argument (a weak one I will admit) for keeping it in italics is that it was cut up into a four part serial on some subsequent showings in the US. I am not sure whether this ever happened in the UK. At 90 minutes it is hard to classify it as a regular episode so it was a good idea to start this thread OZOO so that we can come to a consensus should any strict MoS wikipedians come along. I would vote to keep them both in italics. MarnetteD | Talk 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'v done a bit of work recently converting italics to quotes for the new series episodes. I left The Five Doctors alone as it was a feature-length episode and, as has been noted above, was subsequently sold as a serial to overseas markets.  Wiki's MoS states that italics should generally be used for longer works. So I would say leave it as it is, but I'm happy to go with the consensus. Chris 42 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say stick with the italics, because of it being feature-length, and it being broadcast in some markets as a serial. Either one of those rationales alone would be a little iffy, but I think with both it's justifiable. --Brian Olsen 21:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Five Doctors was also repeated in the UK in 1984 as a four episode version. I think the italics works - it's frankly more confusing all round to use quotes as it will jar heavily with the other stories. Timrollpickering 21:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Doctor Who (1996 film)|Doctor Who]]'' & ''[[The Five Doctors]]''- quotes or italics. 

message: I brought this up before, and nobody seemed to have an opinion, so I went ahead and created some new templates for the episode articles. Most of the templates in the External links and Reviews sections automatically put the episode names in italics, which is fine for the old series but no longer fine for the new. I debated changing the existing templates so they wouldn't automatically italicize, but decided just making a second set of templates which put in quotes automatically would be simpler (since I'd only have to edit the articles for the new series, instead of for both the old and the new). So, for anyone who ever deals with these, the new templates are: :Template:Brief ep, :Template:Doctor Who RG ep, :Template:OG ep, :Template:OG review ep and :Template:DWRG ep. They have the same names as the originals, except with "ep" for "episode" added in (aren't I clever?). I've already made the changes to the articles (up through "The Runaway Bride", which is the last one to use them). --Brian Olsen 22:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New templates for episode articles

message: Hi,
Since the last episode of Doctor Who has let us know that Jack Harkness is The Face of Boe, wouldn't it be safe to assume that he will lead the Torchwood institute into the future? We have heard in the episode "The Satan Pit" that Torchwood still exists (I believe there are other references as well)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin.lemstra (talk • contribs) 
:You can't actually "assume" such a thing without published evidence. Original research isn't allowed here, otherwise every article would get clogged with people's pet theories and bright ideas. This is why there has to be a source for every statement. We don't know if Jack will lead Torchwood yet. And, please sign your posts so we feel like we're talking to someone :) Totnesmartin 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack and Torchwood

message: Please feel free to leave comments on its nomination page. Will (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chronology of the Doctor Who universe]] is a [[WP:FLC|featured list candidate]]. 

message: Now this is probably a stupid idea , but i think there should be page for paradoxes that have appeared in Doctor Who? After watching series 3 it is clear that a lot of events in peoples future bring about events in their own past. Blink is an example and the Jack/Boe paradox as well. I want to hear what you think of this and is it a good idea? 86.156.46.50 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, that would probably end up just being a bunch of original research, and thus not allowable in Wikipedia. If some notable source publishes an article on paradoxes in the series, then it might be alright. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible New Article For Doctor Who? 

message: This page is very long, and needs to be archived. Totnesmartin 17:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: In the Other appearances section, there's an ambiguous statement which says: She eventually becomes involved with a journalist who was investigating the truth behind UNIT and is ultimately murdered by the Master. So is Dodo murdered, or the Journalist? If anybody has the book (Who Killed Kennedy), could they clear this up? Totnesmartin 11:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted: Dodo was murdered by someone operating under the Master's influence.  Mark H Wilkinson 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks mate. Totnesmartin 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dodo Chaplet]] article 

message: I'm new to editing Doctor Who articles on here - and I'd like to ask this question here before developing a new article on Treatment of homosexuality in Doctor Who. Namely, is it ok to start such an article?
The topic looks interesting. Ok, there's nothing in the classic series, as far as I recall, but with the new series things change. Yes, some homosexuals write and produce Doctor Who, the new series is so popular amongst homosexuals that a big screen showed Last of the Time Lords at the London Gay Pride event, and we have our first bisexual and homosexual characters, including the "hero", Capt Jack. However, at the same time, The Empty Child told of two homosexual paedophiles ("there was a man...") that preyed on Nancy's charges, and Rose did not take too easily to Jack's bisexuality. In Gridlock, we saw that in five billion years' time, there is homosexual "marriage", but Brannigan, being an old fashioned cat, can't accept that the Cassidies are a lesbian couple, despite knowing them for many years, instead referring to them as being "sisters".
A new article would develop points such as these, which I find somewhat interesting. I realise we'd have to be careful that the tone remained serious as some might try to hijack it to make inappropriate comments, but that doesn't stop potentially sensitive articles being written elsewhere on Wikipedia. So is it ok to start it? The Tribe of Gum 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the sounds of it, it is in opposition to WP:OR, so my instinct is that you can't create it unless you find sources. --Jamdav86 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that depends how it is written. Nothing in my second paragraph is original research. None of it is opinion. If you disagree, please let me know why, so that I can understand where you're coming from. Ok, we'd have to stop people adding original research, but that's not what I intend to write. The Tribe of Gum 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC's Dr Who episode guide mentions homosexual references in The Happiness Patrol ("The story deals with...gay pride (there's entrapment over cottaging, the TARDIS is painted pink, and the victim of the fondant surprise is every inch the proud gay man, wearing, as he does, a pink triangle)"). Totnesmartin 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's debated - others have argued it's not a pink triangle and that the story just have a camp design. Just because the BBC website uses text from the Discontinuity Guide doesn't mean it endorses it in any way (and in any case this is an after the event interpretation). There have been interviews with authors, most notably Ian Briggs for The Curse of Fenric, who have said that particular characters were meant to be gay but it couldn't be said (although the novelisation does) and metaphors were used (e.g. Dr. Judson, based on Alan Turing, becomes crippled physically in place of being crippled by society/law). Yes there are some bits in the new series but this is really best for an analysis rather than an encyclopedic entry. There's also scope on pieces on race and gender but again it would be either a lot of OR or else citing many fanzines which are not good sources for verifying. Timrollpickering 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It more belongs on your LiveJournal than Wikipedia, to be honest. It's also incredibly likely to be hijacked by the same people in IMDb who think RTD is dragging the show into some sort of sexual politics (nonsense) and criticise "gay kisses in a childrens' show" (nonsense again, paraphrasing an IMDb user). Honestly, there's not enough academic research on the topic, I think. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there is enough stuff to cite to start an article, however there may well be enough for a section. Another thing that springs to mind is Judson in The Curse of Fenric being based on Alan Turing and how, as it wasn't appropriate at the time, Turing's struggle with homosexuality became Judson's struggle with his physical disability which can be cited by the DVD interview with serial writer Ian Briggs. GracieLizzie 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment of homosexuality in Doctor Who 

message: There are missing cover images for Wooden Heart (Doctor Who) and Sting of the Zygons. I also think that Hex (Doctor Who) should a scan from the covr of the settling, as with the other audio only companions. Maybe we should offically apoint some to be the one to upload new covers? What does everyone think?(Black Dalek 11:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Just happened to notice that some companion actor articles have our wikiproject tag and some don't. Is there a consensus here that they are "all in or "all out"? And if not, should there be one? Totnesmartin 22:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should all be in... if the tag is misisng from someones page...you should add it.--Dr who1975 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I will. Totnesmartin 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and came across some surprising absences - Lis Sladen, Sophie Aldred, Noel Clarke... also added  Anthony Ainley, Roger Delgado, Michael Wisher, Michael Sheard, John Levene and Richard Franklin. Totnesmartin 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion actors 

message: Why do we have a bit of a revert war going on about the "Ongoing" status of characters announced for Christmas and/or the 2008 series?  I don't recall seeing any discussion or consensus on this, just lots of edits back and forth. I personally think it's silly to keep it out if the character is announced for a future appearance, as in such a case it isn't at all speculative. Either way, though, it would be good to have everyone on the same page (this one!) instead of endlessly putting it in and taking it out! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What page are we talking about? --Edokter (Talk) 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Ongoing" - or not? 

message: What are the fail guidelines!!! I have been trying tyo edit aN ENTRY INT HE TWO DOCTORS BASED ON ACTUALour ammeneded entires and total LY seeing the edisode. Only to be met by an on line mafia and total avoidance of my sand box project.
I am seriously considering contacting an administrator to assess the project based on four entries changed without good reasonj and a lack of input into the sandbox. If I am in error please tell me the reason for such and I will gladly bow to experienced opinion. However, I have tried the pathwways described for entries and found them to nbe frustrating. If I am at fault mie culpe, otherwise explain to me why valid experiential entries are ingnored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blakesseven (talk • contribs).
:Because they're wrong.  "Two Doctors" is widely available on video and DVD, and what you claim simply doesn't happen.  "Carnival of Monsters" I don't remember offhand, but the point is not to rationalize what happens.  Please sign your posts with four tildes. MSJapan 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I taped the episode while it was still showing on PBS, long before it came out on DVD, and have watched it numerous times. Nothing like that ever happened. Maybe you're confusing it with the Sontaran getting killed with coronic acid, but that wasn't digestive. Where did you see it? If in England, perhaps there was a different version than what aired in America. But I seriously doubt there was that radical a difference. Shockeye did say that Oscar's constant pestering about getting paid had affected his digestion. Perhaps that's part of the mix-up? But Oscar was definitely stabbed in the version I have. -Ebyabe 02:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Two Doctors edits

message: Right, the article "Master (Doctor Who)" is way way way way too long. Anyone familiar with the old series willing to lend a hand towards contracting it lots?~ZytheTalk to me! 00:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a chunk out of it.  The problem is the amount of plot summary, thugh I don't think it's necessarily too long.  I'll work on it more tomorrow. MSJapan 04:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've shortened the television Master stuff by 4½ kb, but I've left the novels and audioplays alone as I'm not familiar with them. There was also a canonicity warning, which I incorporated into the text. Wikipedia articles don't have to stick to canonicity, but it's useful to mention it. The article is now fairly close to the 32k guideline. Totnesmartin 10:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master length 

message: *Can someone please upload the audio cover for the story Slipback.
*Can the person that keeps deleteing the code for The Movie please stop it. The production code is TVM. It says so on the official Doctor Who website. Just go to: 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/tvmovie/detail.shtm or just go to the official website, then click on classic series, then episode guide, then on Eighth Doctor, then on The Movie, then on In Detail and it will prove I'm right.
These two items were posted on the main page for the project by User:VitasV by mistake. I have moved them here for discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the course of months, User:Victory93 keeps reinserting the TVM production code for the film and 171a for the Children in Need Special, and they seem to be his only contributions. Several editors keep reverting. I understand these codes cannot be sourced online, but some insight might help so we don't have to edit-war over it. --Edokter (Talk) 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

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. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:DWspinoff}}]]

message: :Image:Eighth Doctor Publicity.jpg, used on Paul McGann has been nominated for deletion (here).
If it is to be kept, we need to establish (i) its importance to the article per WP:NFCC #8; and (ii) the source of the image, and terms under which it has been released.
For (i) it is probably sufficient that this is one of the 3 roles McGann is best remembered for - and the one with by far the most distinctive "look".  (Though there is a cadre of image cops who will do their best to object to any non-free content they think they might be able to get deleted, on any grounds - so further arguments to the images's significance and general acceptability could be helpful).
For (ii) we need to establish that publication on wikipedia is not notably interfering with anybody else's commercial use.  If the BBC are commercially licensing the pic to particular publications/websites on a semi-exclusive basis, this is not good, because our use here could be seen as making the picture less exclusive and so less valuable.  On the other hand, if this is a standard publicity shot, released by the BBC to the media for re-use at zero cost, that would be very helpful, because use here would not be doing any commercial damage at all.
So if anybody has any precise source info on this image - ie if we can definitively document who originally released it, and on what terms, that would be useful.
We have at most 5 days, if we want to keep the image here.  Jheald 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added my comment. --Edokter (Talk) 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul McGann photo nominated for IfD 

message: At the end of Evolution of the Daleks, Dalek Caan activated it's emergency temporal shift. This basically randomly sends it to a time and place. Is it possible that it could have sent Caan back to the point where it met the previous Doctor? Consider: it had the same color and voice as Caan (though this isn't absolute proof; most Daleks look and sound the same) and it didn't recognize the Doctor (since it only knew the Doctor's current (or in this situation next) incarnation.
Admittedly, this is just wishful thinking, but it does make for a nice tidy circle. I just started thinking about it at the end of Evolution, when the Doctor said "Oh, yes. One day"... HalfShadow 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. If that were Caan, then how would we ever see more from the Daleks? We're going to need him to live for quite a while, or start breeding. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're forgetting the whole time-travel element of Doctor Who. One episode doesn't necessarily take place after another; quite a few technically take place before. For instance, Smith and Jones takes place roughly 'now', The Shakespeare Code takes place in the mid-1500's (where the Doctor meets an extremely pissed-off Queen who's wants him dead for something he hasn't even done yet(!)), Gridlock takes place nearly 5 billion years from now and Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution... takes place in the 1930's.
Like I said, there's no proof the Dalek is Caan, and, at best, this is original research, but it would be a brillant wrap-up if it were... HalfShadow 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the BBC's Fear Forecasters for the episode believed that it might've been the case (see third bottom pic), so you're not alone in that belief. Of course, that's not the BBC's official words, just those of a group of people, and even if the Utah Dalek was Caan the BBC would have to bring back the Daleks in another way. ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 06:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Dalek Caan knew that he was the last of the Daleks, unlike the Dalek in Dalek (Who we also knew fell through the time vortex after  The Last Great Time War - Not through an emergency temporal shift). So, to cut it short, I don't think it is Caan! --Ed the Penguin 11:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could the Dalek in the episode 'Dalek' be Dalek Caan? 

message: How come there is no page on the Doctor Who videogame Doctor Who The Mines of Terror with the Sixth Doctor. Somebody best do this as it has been out for a long time and still no page on Wikipedia about it. VitasV 24/7/2007
:A long time? 1985 is too long ago for the usual videogame writers here. meanwhile, it's mentioned in Doctor Who merchandise and you can play it here. Totnesmartin 09:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You, perhaps? Totnesmartin 09:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror

message: Please see talk:Synthespians™ for a requested move discussion of the above PDA. Tim! 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Final result: The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. The request appears to be the result of a misunderstanding, and the symbol appears to be an integral part of the title. The current title does not appear to conflict with WP:MOS-TM. HalfShadow 00:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move of Synthespians™ → Synthespians  

message: http://www.gallifreyone.com/news.php
I'm guessing it is too early to start a page on it? 86.157.45.164 09:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much too early I'm afraid. We don't even know the title yet. Premature articles about video games, films and albums tend to get deleted if there's no solid information in them. Best leave this until closer to Christmas. Totnesmartin 10:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who video game confirmed 

message: There's something of a disagreement over which image to use to illustrate the plot of episode article 42 (Doctor Who): :Image:Doctor42.jpg or :Image:42 (Doctor Who).jpg.  It'd be useful if we had wider input, so we can get the issue decided, one way or the other.  The discussion is over here.  Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot image for [[42 (Doctor Who)]] 

message: Drax (Time-Lord) has been created, for anyone who wants to help out there. Totnesmartin 23:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikified some, and moved to Drax (Time Lord). --Edokter (Talk) 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (another) New article 

message: Doctor Who story chronology is now up for a deletion debate. Totnesmartin 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD is now closed. The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. --Edokter (Talk) 12:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who story chronology AfD 

message: List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers has been sent for deletion by Aderack 70.51.8.214 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest we start commenting, and improving the article, as it does lack sources. --Edokter (Talk) 09:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't see the point of this article. It really does mostly duplicate Companion (Doctor Who) and by adding guest stars, it just becomes a cast list duplicating the individual episode articles. I might actually lean towards supporting deletion, but I need to investigate further. However we should pay attention to the comment made by the second or third voter who appears to be of the opinion that most of the Doctor Who character articles -- including those of the Doctor himself -- should be deleted because of insufficient "real world" sources. (Which suggests the poster has never visited a SF bookstore with a Doctor Who section before). Although he was quickly called to task by others, it's this kind of unaware opinion that results in us having to chase down multiple AFDs.  23skidoo 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind you, some character articles are lacking in real-world sources. Jo Grant is an example - all in-universe except for 2 sentences. Totnesmartin 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to note that I am (slowly) working on providing more references for Doctor Who lists, particularly Celebrity and notable guest appearances in Doctor Who, List of music featured on Doctor Who and List of UNIT personnel in Doctor Who, the latter awaiting my uncovering my Doctor Who Poster Magazine Issue 4. Wolf of Fenric 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Doctor Who TARDIS travellers at AfD 

message: Just like to mention that the page title for the Sea Devils is called Sea Devil which in fact is a mistake. Can someone please change it from Sea Devil to Sea Devils please. VitasV 3/8/2007
:Sorry, no. There's a policy that explains that.--OZOO (What?) 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, Sea devils is already taken. I've added some disambiguation though. --Edokter (Talk) 09:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: VitasV, take a look at the policy that OZOO referred you to - we use the singular for titles whenever possible. So "Dalek", "Cyberman", "Sea Devil", not "Daleks", "Cybermen" or "Sea Devils". --Brian Olsen 00:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might consider rewriting the intro to read along the lines of 'A sea devil is a member of a race of ...' to clarify why the article is entitled Sea Devil instead of Sea Devils.  The reason, of course, being this is the convention in encyclopedias. DonQuixote 01:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're itching to do it, do it! Be bold! It's certainly a sensible move. Totnesmartin 08:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. We will need to clean up the redirects through Sea Devil so that that page can be redirected to Sea devil. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 08:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is redirected. I've started to disambiguate the links. --Edokter (Talk) 11:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Not the most pleasent of jobs... --Edokter (Talk) 12:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sea Devils not Sea Devil

message: Many Doctor Who books are in serious need of clean up. The Indestructible Man (Doctor Who) needs clean up, Reckless Engineering needs a better quality cover image, Interference: Book One needs a cover. Just so you know.(Black Dalek 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One down. I added back the cover for Interference: Book One that got deleted a while back. Included more of the fair-use info this time, so it hopefully won't be removed again. -Ebyabe 21:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Took a digital pic of my copy of Reckless Engineering and replaced the one in the article with it. Hope that's OK. :) -Ebyabe 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC Books

message: Could we have doctor who seasons templates to be placed at the bottom of episode/ serial articles, like the Template:Dalek Stories?  Here is an example that covers Season 1. StuartDD 19:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who seasons templates 

message: The article Jack Harkness is a featured article candidate. Please feel free to leave comments.~ZytheTalk to me! 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to transclude it to the main WP:FAC page.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Harkness is a featured article candidate 

message: It seems that articles for Zachary Cross Flane and Scooti Manista, characters from The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, have been created.  Their creator may need help in asserting notability.  Assuming that's remotely possible. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a note on the user's talk page and proposed deletion of these articles. In the end, while these are unquestionably good-faith contributions, the characters just aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Impossibles 

message: I have begun to compile a list of citations for episodes and serials here. Such citations will be needed for improving articles towards GA and FA status, and will save effort as they can be copy and pasted. The list is hideously incomplete because so far I've only copied existing citations from the few articles which contain them. If thought to be a worthwhile exercise I can move the list to a subpage of this project. Tim! 10:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't somebody else working on this as well? I seem to recall making some edits to something just like this, but in table format, a while back, but I can't remember where it was, or who began it. It's a good idea, I think it would be useful to have as a subpage of the project. --Brian Olsen 18:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WHO NOTES, I believe.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's it. Wow, hasn't been touched in a while - I'll try and take a look at it. Tim, would you consider continuing your work there, since the page has already been started? --Brian Olsen 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool, I never knew about that page. I'll update that one instead, cheers. :) Tim! 10:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok - I've just done a pretty massive overhaul of the page. I removed all of the info on production codes, number of episodes, etc, because it all was carried over from the episode list. This page is really meant to be just a place to copy the citation info from, and it's probably going to get very, very long, so I got rid of anything extraneous. I added a column to display the citations as they would appear on the page, which can be hard to determine by looking at just the code. --Brian Olsen 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, but all the (new series) episode title in the list itself now show in italics instead of quoted.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They did before, actually, I just neglected to fix it. I think this page was created back when we were still italicizing the new series. I'll take care of it in a bit. --Brian Olsen 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode citations 

message: If the story about William Hartnell turning up on the set of The Seeds of Death is true, I'm a bit surprised that nobody refers to it in the commentary for the DVD. I am also made a bit suspicious by a more detailed account of what is said to be in the source. This web page says: UNIT was,          according to Peter Bryant, "set up to prevent Earth being attacked by          aliens", and was quite successful, prompting the production team to          decide that from 1970 the Doctor would be exiled to Earth and forced to          help UNIT as their Scientific Advisor. Patrick Troughton was very          excited by this idea, but problems arose for him whilst working on The Seeds Of Death, when William Hartnell arrived unexpectedly in          the studio, thinking that he was still the Doctor and began ordering          people around. In an American book about the series, Peter          Bryant recalled what happened:
"Pat was very irritated by Bill's mad behaviour, and went over and told him to get          out, but Bill started telling everyone about the time he said, 'One day,          I shall come back', and explained that the time was now. Things got          worse and worse, particularly when Bill saw Wendy Padbury (who played          companion Zoe), as she was wearing a very sixties 'dolly bird' costume.          He called it explicit porn, and said we were all cursed. The BBC          security men then threw him out, but I was saddened by such a great man          being reduced to foolishness by his illness."
This          incident disturbed Troughton greatly, and he announced that he wanted to          leave the programme, as did Frazer Hines and Wendy Padbury. This caused          a great deal of consternation, as Peter Bryant was also bent on leaving          to work on more adult drama programmes.
The source is given as Doctor Who In The Swinging Sixties, by Eric Luskin (Star Books, 1988) not quite the same title as is given in the Wikipedia entry (Eric Luskin, Doctor Who in the 60s). There is a lot of circumstantial detail that doesn't check out about this story; apart from anything else, the front page of the site in question makes it clear that it is not a serious assemblage of facts, and includes some fiction (reference to 'Robin Bland', in fact a pseudonym, as if this was a real person makes that quite clear). Argument from silence is never foolproof, but it's surprising that the authors of other Doctor Who reference books chose to draw a veil over this incident, if they knew of it. 
If the story was indeed The Seeds of Death, Hartnell's reported reaction to Zoe's costume is rather excessive, as she spends most of it in a fairly modest outfit, certainly in comparison with some of her other costumes. The timing in this account of Troughton, Hines and Padbury's decisions to leave the programme do not square at all with the much more detailed sequence recorded by Wood and Miles (with back-up from BBC archives). 
And I do not believe in the source either. I have found no record of any book anywhere on any topic by Eric Luskin (the earnest presenter of a couple of American documentaries on Doctor Who). There are a couple of books with similar titles: Stephen Baycroft's The Promethean Magician: Doctor Who in the Sixties (apparently self-published by the author in Sydney, in 1996), and of course Howe, Stammers and Walker's Doctor Who: The Sixties (Virgin, 1994). 
So I have concluded that the story is a joke in rather poor taste, and deleted it from the article on The Seeds of Death; but I am open to persuasion if anyone else has seen it in a real source.
Nwhyte 13:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing.  This story is complete and utter bilge.  I pity the poor sod who was fooled into thinking this was genuine (assuming it wasn't subtle vandalism).  I mean, the same "Habris History of Who" has an article on the work of the Restoration Team, which states that Ali G wiil be digitally inserted into The Happiness Patrol. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeds of Death/Hartnell story 

message: I'd like to repeat my request for the covers for Wooden Heart (Doctor Who) and Sting of the Zygons. This are the only new adventures without covers (even unreleased ones), whlist these remain blank.Thank you.(Black Dalek 18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat Image request

message: FYI, the article List of Time Lords is up for deletion here on AfD. While I have no real opinion on this AfD, thought you guys might. Cheers! Zidel333 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm intrigued that "no real opinion" equates to "keep", these days. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for List of Time of Lords