Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 9

message: This is sort of a continuation of the discussion begun above at "Notes" section in episode articles. I've made some changes to An Unearthly Child, in an attempt to begin the process of bringing some important info that's currently in the "trivia" section into the main body of the article, in the hope that this will eventually lead to more "out-of-universe" info in the individual serials articles. I've added sections on "Production," "Transmission," and "In print," just to start things off. (I went with "In print" as opposed to "Novelization," so that the section can include relevant info from the original novel ranges, and I'm hoping someone can come up with a better word than "Transmission" that more clearly includes video and dvd releases.) I think that the Trivia sections should ultimately consist mostly of in-universe info (of the "This is the first time we see the Doctor blah blah blah" variety), with real-world info taking its place in the main article itself (alongside the plot description). I haven't actually done much besides shuffle around the existing info, but hopefully the restucturing will encourage folks to add to what's there (I'm not in a place right now where I can do much of that myself, for assorted real-life reasons). I'll hold off on doing this to more articles until other people can chime in with thoughts. --Brian Olsen 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good idea — I won't have time to help with the reorganization for a while, but I support what you're doing.  How about "Release" to cover transmission and video/DVD releases? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please also update the style guide on the WikiProject page so the continuing fracturing of style across the various pages caused by different people doing different things to a minimum. Tim! 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The style guide - I didn't think of that. Should that wait until a few more people have weighed in? And at least until there's agreement on what the new sections should be. I guess I'm proposing "Production," "Release" (which I think is better than my "Transmission"), "In print" (unless that could be covered under "Release"?), and then any special sections important enough to be relevant to that particular serial (like the pilot episode or the "Morbius Doctors"). Any other section titles that might be appropriate for the bulk of the serial articles? --Brian Olsen 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way to approach things is to go ahead and restructure the articles willy-nilly based on what sort of contents you find, and then once you've done a bunch go back and look at them and see whether you came up with some common groupings of information. I did a little reorganization the other day on Army of Ghosts and Love & Monsters and found that there was a lot of information on casting and a lot of information on references to other episodes of Doctor Who lumped into the trivia section, so after a while one thinks it might be worthwhile adding sections for that stuff. I notice that a "cast notes" subsection's been added to both of those since then, how about using that? Bryan 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it would be nice to avoid simply splitting one big bulleted list up into several smaller ones - I originally de-bulleted the stuff I reorganized in the hopes that it would get turned into prose with further editing. Bryan 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty with this is that the individual subjects of the notes are usually disconnected, even if under the same general theme, so do not lend themselves well to a single prose piece, which is why I bulleted them again. If they can be reorganised, then that's the time to remove the bullets, but until that happens, it simply reads odd. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll go ahead and follow Bryan's suggestion by diving in, and see how it develops. I'm going with "Broadcast and releases" for info on transmission info and home video/DVD releases - it seems most accurate, even though it feels clumsy (and I'm still hoping someone else can think of something better). --Brian Olsen 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "Distribution" ? -- Chuq 01:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why there needs to be a separate "cast notes" subsection to the "cast" section since the "cast" section is already rather sparse on content - in all cases I've seen so far it's just been a plain list of characters and actors. And I've already explained my distaste for yet more bulleted lists of facts. This isn't a question of "cleaning up", it's a matter of differing views on how the article should be structured. Bryan 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also explained why the bullets make more sense, since the paragraphs are not part of a unified sub-essay but are disparate points united only by a basic theme. Also, the cast notes sub-header organises it better because the header simply says "cast" - and those notes are not a cast listing. I would assume that if either was unpalatable to you, you would have reverted it or started a discussion about it to achieve some kind of modus, because we really should have a consistent look. Otherwise, it all just looks random. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring of serial articles

message: I found a good police box image, which I think is an image of a toy, but it looks great. Now, it needs a lot of work, such as transparency added so that it can go anywhere, however I haven't uploaded it here yet because I wanted your opinion first as to whether or not we can use it everywhere we need. The things that I like most about it is that it is square and is on a neutral background. It can be found here. - LA @ 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty to add a transparent background layer.  The image works quite well it is resized.  I've uploaded the full size onto my Flickr account. Can we use this image for the Doctor Who Project?  Liyster 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice image, but I'm worried about fair use issues, particularly sourcing and copyright of the original image. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You can ask, but even then I'm not sure that'd be good enough to fall under GDFL. Remember, the WP:FU criteria are very, very strictly enforced these days. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police box image 

message: Hello all...I just noticed that the three userboxes related to a favorite mechanical enemy of the Doctor categorize the user of the userbox into a companion category. Well, to me that is just silly. I think that all of the Doctor userboxes, with the exception of the WikiProject one, should all categorize the users into Category:Wikipedians who like Doctor Who. I am going to change out the categories on those three userboxes and CfD the one category already created by one of those three above. Your thoughts? - LA @ 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had thought that the userbox wars resolved against "Wikipedians who" categories in general. Phil Sandifer 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox user categorization convention 

message: I was just thinking, and it seems that the Notes/Trivia sections as they are now can be expanded into well-written sections, such as Production, Continuity, Background, etc.  In other words they're notes for sections that could be written.  Given the fact that all this information can be drawn together from DVD production notes, DWM and all the books written (e.g. Doctor Who: The Early Years), it wouldn't be a stretch to collate all this data and present it formally.  DonQuixote 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably the best idea I've ever heard about this Notes/Trivia business. --Thelb4 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.  As the project's resident continuity geek, I particularly like the notion of a separate "continuity" section for a lot of the "fannish trivia" — as long as it's presented with an out-of-universe perspective, it makes sense to have a place for it that separates it from the "real-world" considerations that should be the primary focus of the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reviewed a few articles to get a feel for which one to start on, and lo-and-behold someone's already started doing this (before I even mentioned it).  LOL.  Guess a lot of us are on the same page.  Anyway, we should continue on this track.  DonQuixote 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which episodes? --Thelb4 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See An Unearthly Child and The Daleks.  Still need to expand the rest of the trivia for those though.  DonQuixote 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on it - I'm also going to pare back the summary a bit - we can link to the DWRG for detailed plot summaries, I think, instead of writing our own, and that pushes us a bit more towards real encyclopedia and away from fan encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be me! Just wanted to pipe in that I'm (obviously) all for this, and if you want others' opinions on it, there's some more discussion on this topic above, at Restructuring of serial articles and Excessive summary length--Brian Olsen 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding "Notes/Trivia" to "Production" 

message: Hi, folks.   has been editing articles about Doctor Who actors, and some of his additions have raised copyright concerns.  I wanted to give the Project a heads-up, and ask for some help in going through his recent contributions to check for other problems.  Two issues that I've noticed: some copyvio text added to Colin Baker (copied from here), and this image, which  was concerned about.  I've put a better fair use rationale on the image, which Geni says should suffice — however, Geni also wondered whether Fox or Universal might have a share of the image copyright.  Does anyone know about that for certain?
I don't think that Deej30 has any ill intentions, but we should make sure that his other recent contributions are kosher with regards to copyright.  I'll try to look over some tonight, but it seems Deej30 was busy over the last few days.  I'd appreciate some help. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, that's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Eighth_Doctor_Publicity.jpg TransUtopian 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  My bad; fixed now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright matters 

message: PediaPress is a service that allows you to create a book out of selected Wikipedia articles. Is anyone interested in ordering a book of Doctor Who articles: http://pediapress.com/order/kffjljvjccdcjsry/.--Bjwebb (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old link seems to have expired, so I've made a new one. If someone does order it then more copies can be produced, at a discount, with money going to the Wikimedia foundation.--Bjwebb (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is anyone interested in buying a book, and if they are, could they publish it so that it can be sold at a discounted rate.--Bjwebb (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PediaPress 

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Doctor_Who%2Farticles for a list of changes to Doctor Who articles.--Bjwebb (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done!  Thanks, Bjw! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic resource, well done!  —Litefoot 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Who articles 

message: Hello I'm relativly new here, but I've been digging through the archives and I noticed that the Personality sections of the older series Doctors were once much longer than they are currently, and closer to the length of the ninth and tenth Doctors' personality section. It seems these changes were made by  and although "see discussion" was given as the edit summary the only discussion record I could find was just saying that the changes had been made, wthout any discussion. I would like to change them back so as to me more uniform through out the Doctor pages and thought it would be a good idea to see what others had to say before making such a drastic change. Quest4pi 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it, though we have to be aware of WP:OR. --Jamdav86 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctor's Personality 

message: I created this as a sandbox, and wonder if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile exercise, or if it's a stupid idea and unutterable listcruft... ;) I'll move to main space if anyone else likes it is an idea. Tim! 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I'm not entirely sure.  My first instinct, honestly, was that it was a bit too narrow a topic, but then I had a look at :Category:2006 and its subcats, and realized that it would be far from the only specialized almanac list.  It's certainly no less deserving than, say, 2006 in NASCAR!  I'm not sure how active the project is, but perhaps you could ask at WikiProject Years to see if they've got any guidelines for articles of this kind.  It might be better to get a non-Who-fan perspective. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in two minds... Half of me thinks it's a bit much for Wikipedia, while the other half thinks it might at least keep people from over-doing it with Doctor Who stuff on the general "Years in television" pages. Angmering 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Tim!/2006 in Doctor Who|2006 in Doctor Who]] 

message: I'm working on the list of appearances for the Brigadier, and I've got a small question I'd like to throw out to the project.  I've been including character appearances in original novels, but not novelizations (because they're just reworkings of a story told in another medium).  But a few novelizations — specifically Downtime and The Ghosts of N-Space — were released as part of the Virgin Missing Adventures series, as if they were original novels.  Should they be listed under "novels" or not?  I had listed Downtime twice on the Victoria Waterfield entry, but I wasn't sure about it; I'm even less sure vis-a-vis the Brigadier, who appeared in both.  (It also seems odd to include The Ghosts of N-Space, which was released as part of the Missing Adventures line, but exclude The Paradise of Death, which was the last book published as part of the old Target Books novelization series; but it also feels a bit odd to exclude them.)  What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could list them under the first medium they appeared in, e.g. radio for The Ghosts of N-Space then put after that "{novelisation by so-and-so)". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose... although "novelisation by so-and-so" could be read as suggesting that so-and-so didn't write the original, whereas in point of fact Barry Letts novelized his own radio scripts, and Marc Platt novelized his own script for Downtime.  Hmm... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances list query 

message: As noted by  here, Shannon's site has been forced to move from its original server. We need to start moving the massive numbers of links now... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most of the links are OK, thanks to the use of  on serial pages.  What pages have links to Shannon's site but don't use that template? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may some references in the "trivia" sections on serial articles which I vaguely remember adding... Tim! 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, one can find external links en masse with Special:Linksearch.--SB | T 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to know! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Brief History of Time (Travel)

message: I've just gotten back to the lists of appearances for the companions, after being distracted by a content dispute on a non-Doctor Who article for a while.  I noticed that an anonymous editor has changed the formatting for several new series characters today — see this edit on Jackie Tyler, for example — and I think it's an improvement.  Unless anyone disagrees, I think I'll start applying this formatting to the lists of appearances (I'm working on Sarah Jane Smith right now).  However, I may not have time right away to go back and amend all the other classic series companions who already have such lists; if anyone wants to take the initiative on that it would be great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done Sarah Jane Smith in the new format; let me know whether you prefer it (with subheads merely bolded) to the old one (with full subheaders), which you can see at Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart, for example. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Similarly, I've just noticed that whereas Sarah Jane Smith#Novels is divided by novel lines (MAs, NAs, PDAs, EDAs) Peri Brown#Novels is divided by which Doctor she appears with.  Which do people think is the more useful and/or encyclopedic?  (I'm not really bothered either way, but I think we should be consistent.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, barring any complaints I'll change them all to match Sarah Jane Smith#Novels: divided by novel line, bolded rather than full subheaders. While I'm at it, I think I'll change "television serials" to simply "television", to avoid the slight awkwardness of "television serials and episodes". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of formatting in lists of appearances 

message: Someone named Paul Williams wrote a short story in Short Trips: Past Tense.  The article used to link to Paul Williams, which is a disambiguation page.  I assumed that this Paul Williams was neither Paul Williams (Crawdaddy! creator), who has written about science fiction (Theodore Sturgeon and Philip K. Dick), nor Paul O. Williams (who did write science fiction in the '80s, but seems now to be focused mainly on haiku).  But was that assumption correct?  I don't have a copy of Past Tense to see if it has an author bio — could someone who does have it check, please?  And if it is a different Paul Williams (as I assume), he probably ought to have a more specific disambiguation than Paul Williams (writer), since there are (at least) three other writers by that name.  If he's British he could be Paul Williams (British writer), but I didn't want to assume that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Williams? 

message: I thought I would bring it to the group's attention that yesterday I nominated this page for deletion. (See nomination page here). I thought I'd put a note here as some of you may like to comment / vote. Angmering 14:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jeremy Hoad]]

message: I've been doing some work on this article over the part couple of days, expanding it, adding citations and so forth. I'm hoping to get it up to featured article standard, along the lines of the Sydney Newman piece, although it's not there yet. For one thing it needs more on her time at Thames and Euston — does anybody know any good sources, reference books etc, that go into this at all?
Also, if anybody has a free, non-copyright image of Lambert we could use — taken at a convention or what have you — that would probably be advantageous. Angmering 21:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to expand the Thames section after getting some books out of the library today, and doing some more online research. Still could do with a free use picture, but I'm thinking of taking it to peer review. Any comments? Angmering 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have now added the article to peer review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Verity Lambert/archive1, so we'll see what the outside verdict is — if any! Angmering 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great to me — your usual fine work, Paul.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Josiah. It hasn't attracted huge amounts of feedback on Peer Review yet, but that might just be because it's not exactly of wide interest. I still think it's a little too short to be a featured article, but I am now toying with the idea of submitting it to FAC once it's been on PR for a week — if nothing else, it should get some more detailed feedback that way. Angmering 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now up as a featured article candidate: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Verity Lambert. Angmering 06:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Verity Lambert]]

message: As you all probably know, there is a new series of Eighth Doctor adventures, produced by Big Finish, starting around Christmas on BBC7; these will feature a new companion and be more like the current TV series in format.  The information is from the latest DWM, which I haven't received yet, but the salient facts are also here.  Would it be premature to create article pages for these audios, given that we have cast lists already, or should we wait until we have more confirmation from BBC7 and/or Big Finish, or until it's closer to broadcast time? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd wait a bit, I think, until nearer the time. Angmering 06:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are now official enough - Outpost Gallifrey have gone with it, and we have Big Finish audios well in advance listed anyway.  Morwen - Talk 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Eighth Doctor audios on BBC7 

message: I'd like to direct project members to the question I've raised here, namely whether it's time to reconsider having an article for the 2007 series.  I've opposed having such an article in the past, but given that we may not have episode titles until later than we did last year, and we've got quite a bit of well-cited info which is taking up a lot of room in List of Doctor Who serials, despite not being really part of that list, I think the time has come.  Discussion here please. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 3 article? 

message: I was wondering today, after adding the credits for voicing Rose and Mickey in the Japanese dub to Maaya Sakamoto and Setsuji Satō's pages and I was wondering if it would be worth adding such voice actors to the WikiProject? These are the only two I know that have wikipages (The Doctor - Kazuhiro Yamaji, and Jackie - Masako Inobe don't seem to have one yet) and I don't know the names of any other language VAs. What do you guys think? --GracieLizzie 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. I don't see the harm. --Jamdav86 16:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds off-project and more otaku, so the importance escapes me. GraemeLeggett 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You could just addit to the character page and leave the eps alone. --Jamdav86 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dub voice actors 

message: Sorry to post about this again, but I thought I'd drop a quick reminder about Verity Lambert being up as a featured article candidate, as it's been there for five days now and attracted a grand total of one response. Which was a support, admittedly, but it's not going to pass with only one vote. I suppose people simply aren't really that interested in articles about television producers.
Anyway, I wouldn't expect anybody to automatically support it simply because it's a Doctor Who-related article, but if you have a moment do please give it a read and vote accordingly. Even if it's an oppose, it'll keep the debate going and hopefully lead to improvements which will see the article pass and us able to add another featured article to our project's honours! Angmering 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC reminder

message: This category has been listed for deletion (AGAIN) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29. Please participate in the "discussion". Tim! 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Doctor Who actors]] 

message: I think it would be a great idea to add to the episode summaries a line for time period and place.  By time period I mean the area(s) of time that the Doctor travels to in that episode.  An example would be unearthly child took place in 1960s Earth and 100,000 Earth, or "End of the World" took place in the year 5 billion.. etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.9.154 (talk • contribs) 
:I think most of them do, are there any in particular you have seen which are missing? Also see Doctor Who chronology. Tim! 08:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Periods in Doctor Who Serials 

message: With the recent edits to Time Lord, I'm thinking that there's enough information to spin-off an article. I've created Regeneration (Doctor Who) with a Conceptual History section and shifted the bulk of information that was formerly in Time Lord to it (as well as the Romana's Regeneration section of Romana). 
I've left Doctor (Doctor Who) largely untouched because those sections appear to be Doctor-specific, and my envisioning of "Regeneration (Doctor Who)" is as just a general discussion about regeneration. I'm also not sure how to move the stuff from "Doctor (Doctor Who)" over without making it look messy, so I've left it as the main article for "The Doctor's regenerations" section in "Regeneration (Doctor Who)". Please discuss possible refinements at the talk page if you can think of them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good show. But I can't help but wonder, should it be added to the Big Doctor Who Box of Death (after all, regeneration is one of the show's biggest and most crucial concepts). - NP Chilla 12:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Regeneration (Doctor Who)]]

message: A new editor recently added what looks like a full bibliography to Terrance Dicks; unfortunately, it's not very well organized and is mostly unformatted.  I don't have time right now to fix the list (organizing it by series, linking the novels that have pages to them, etc.), but if somebody's looking for a project and took this on, they'd get a serving or two of undying gratitude. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start on it. Do you think it worth ordering by series rather than straight chronological order? I've separated the Dr Who stuff out from the rest. Tim! 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrance Dicks 

message: Project members may be interested to know that Lengths of science fiction movie and television series has been nominated for AfD.  The discussion is here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengths of science fiction movie and television series on AfD 

message: Would editors kindly help me put Template:OG on every Doctor Who serial or episode page? I've done the new series, but the 1st-7th Doctors remain uncompleted. --Thelb4 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distibution of OG template 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: Greetings.  I've just created a small article for this term.  I was prompted to create by its use in the Star Trek universe but a bit of research showed that it's a Doctor Who term as well, from the Big Finish radio plays.  More research informed the Doctor Who section of my article, but someone with more Whoniverse expertise may wish to edit and expand this section. Maximoff77 22:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anti-time]]

message: Difference of opinion as to which screenshot to use between myself and . I've put up a detailed explanation at Talk:Everything Changes (Torchwood) as to why I prefer the one I chose. Do weigh in on this, even if it's just to tell me I'm an asshole (or more civilly, that you would prefer Bastique's screenshot). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Everything Changes (Torchwood)]]