Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 3

message: This page is getting very long so do you think we ought to archive some of it? --Jawr256 18:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I'd like to keep the Gay Question section until that is resolved (or people stop caring), so either archive everything but that or wait until things settle down a little.  But in general, yes.  This page is much too long.  --Yamla 18:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Is it supposed to be a discussion page? I thought these were supposed to be encyclopedia entries. There is a better guide to gay themes in Doctor Who at http://www.nyder.com/stuff/whosqueer.html . It really is just a list of gay references - no opinions expressed regarding the right or wrong - it's extremely even-handed; although the editor elsewhere makes no secret of the fact that he is himself gay there is no trace of bias in the guide. Furthermore it takes into account the original series as well, rather than pretending this phenomena is only noticable in the new series. Some of the entries are simply schoolboy double entendre humour (especially old fashioned uses of the words "queer" or "gay" in the sixties episodes), but there are many serious and sensible observations that are interesting if one wants to make a study of the trend, and the observations that are not so sensible are very amusing.
:This is a discussion page. On Wikipedia, every article has its own discussion page to help users work collabratively on that page. The actual Doctor Who article can be found by clicking on article at the top of the page (or click here). --βjweþþ (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Minor queries on the music bit - did the Human League really ever cover the Dr Who theme? I must have nearly every thing they've ever released, down to obscure B-sides, I've never heard their cover of it! (There is an instrumental called "Tom Baker", but this is not a cover of Grainer's theme).
I would hesitate to call Howell's 1980 re-working of the theme "disco" (even slightly ;-)  The them is 12/8 rather than 4/4, so couldn't possibly considered 'disco' in terms of musical genre - it doesn't have a disco beat or rhythm. --feline1 00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had this discussion on Talk:Doctor Who theme music. :) Making alterations accordingly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  music 

message: Histrion, I removed that paragraph (after some attempts to rephrase it) because ultimately I realised that that additional sentence basically qualifies the whole thing out of existence, so it becomes a tabloid saying one thing and someone else saying, "Yeah, but it's okay." Not sure it's significant enough. Feel free to discuss if you disagree. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, by the time I tacked on the last sentence, I was beginning to doubt whether the new material was worth adding myself. :) However, if this topic pops up again in the press, it might be worth including the Sunday Mirror's original mention of it. --Jay (Histrion) 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing episodes addition

message: For anyone who's interested, the website TVShowsonDVD (via SciFiWire) is reporting that the BBC plans to release the 2005 series straight to DVD in the United States in February 2006, bypassing regular broadcast completely. The series had already been announced for a Canadian DVD release. 23skidoo 15:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 series DVD announcement for US

message: Do you think it would be wise if someone arranged the websites in certain sections, such as Fan sites, Official sites, &c? DrWho42 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. It is looking a bit unweildy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've had a quick go to at User:Whouk/DWLinks. Any thoughhts? They're the best headings I could come up with, but there well may be better ones. Should fan sites be split further? --Whouk (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it to "Reference sites" and I think you've got it. The fan sites could do with a little internal reorg to group like sites together but I don't think there's a need for further subdivision. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that now? I've tried to reorder the fan sites a bit, although there's no obvious way to group them. I've pasted the changes into the main page here so please tinker as necessary. --Whouk (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks all right. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arranging External Links 

message: See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive V#How_about:_Sectioning_off_of.2Fpossible_banning_of_Fictional_Universe_articles.  I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of some Fictional Universes about this thread.  Perhaps some other fan can pass the word to other relevant interests, or perhaps there ought to be some NPOV template at top of the talk pages. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if this suggestion has been quashed, at least for the moment.  But it's likely to come up again due to the widespread prejudice against "fancruft".  What can we as project members do to improve the reputation of fiction-related and fan-based articles on Wikipedia, besides ensuring that our articles are of the highest quality and conform with policy and guidelines?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Universes not belong in Wikipedia? 

message: I was going to change the caption of the Rose Tyler pic, which currently identifies her as "one of the Doctor's current companions".  That was accurate when the Doc and Rose were joined by Adam and then Captain Jack, but at the moment (between "The Christmas Invasion" and "New Earth") it's back to the two of them again.  But I paused before editing because we know that Mickey will be joining the crew at some point in the second season.  Is it better to leave it be and include Mickey, or should the Rose caption be changed to "the Doctor's current companion"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the more neutral "A companion of the current Doctor"? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible, but that seems to downplay her significance to the current series.  I'm leaning towards "the Doctor's current companion" at the moment, but I'd like to hear other opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simply "current companion, Rose Tyler"? Perhaps link to the Who-centric definition of "companion"? --Aderack 12:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. Sometimes it's possible to overthink these things. Simple is often the best option. 23skidoo 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose Tyler caption 

message: I feel it is important that a reference to the recently announced US broadcast of the 2005 series be included in the intro section. It can be covered in more detail later in the article, and is, but it took me a good 10 minutes to find that reference. One line, as I have added, early on should suffice. I'd also rather see a reference to the DVD release included as well, since I wasn't even aware a DVD article existed until I searched the bowels of this article. 23skidoo 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it any more important than, say, the broadcast of it in other countries like Italy, or Korea, et al.? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A couple of reasons. First the US is the dominant TV market on the planet, and it was very controversial when SciFi rejected the show in the first place. There are a lot of American Wikipedians to whom this is big news. It is also newsworthy on its own merits having just been announced. Also (though I can't add this until I have a source) the announcement may have a domino effect with regards to the CBC airing of the second season. Also, pragmatically, there needs to be something at the top of the article otherwise you'll just have people endlessly adding it later. Unfortunately, the announcement has robbed DW2005 the chance to be truly groundbreaking as the first major TV series to bypass American broadcast and go straight to DVD which was going to happen with the February release. That will have to wait until another producer decides to make a made-for-DVD series. 23skidoo 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, for now it's a good idea to keep that line in there because of the mentioned reasons.  When the inital buzz of the news dies down and it begins broadcasting in the states, the line should be removed and let the encompasing paragraph under "Viewership" of where the show is being broadcast internationally be reference.  Ultimately, the US broadcast shouldn't get more emphasis than the other countries, especially as the US has a whole Doctor Who in America page (which I guess should be added under "See Also" in this article for completeness).  Thehedgehog 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's in the :Template:doctor-who infobox at the bottom of the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just to follow on from Thehedgehog's comment, I'm not suggesting it be permanent. It'll change over time just as eventually talk about the 2006 series being in production will be replaced by 2007 production information. My reasoning is this is the first article a lot of people will see on Doctor Who and for many it'll be the only article. They may not know to (or care to) go hunting for Doctor Who in America or any of the more specific articles. And even then, I'm a Wikipedia addict and I had completely forgotten a DW in America article even existed until Thehedgehog mentioned it just now. 23skidoo 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US Broadcast of 2005 series

message: In practice, however, science fiction stories proved to be far more popular with the viewing public, and the "historicals" were dropped entirely after the first few years.
Popular with the viewing public or with the production team? There's a lot of evidence and analysis that suggests the public liked the historicals as much (and sometimes even more). The script book of The Crusade has an interesting bit on this in the background.
I'll change this in a day or two unless anyone has any citations to the contrary. Timrollpickering 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting topic. When Sydney Newman created the show, he didn't want any explicit SF elements at all beyond the time machine. But the Daleks were such a hit the BBC kept trying to duplicate that success. I believe it was either The Highlanders or The Gunfighters that marked the end of the historicals, only to have them return on an annual basis with Black Orchid during Davison's time. I've yet to see any source that says one way or the other why an all-SF model was adopted, although The Gunfighters is generally considered the Doctor Who equivalent of "Spock's Brain". 23skidoo 16:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last "pure" historical before Black Orchid was The Highlanders, and they didn't do another pure historical on TV after that (and still haven't). That line that Tim quotes has been in the article since before I started editing the Doctor Who pages, I think. I haven't read the script book for The Crusade so I'll defer to his view on this. I'll drag out some of my own reference books and see if there's any mention of it and adjust it accordingly if contrary info surfaces. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get the reference to "Spock's Brain"... --Whouk (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mustn't be a Trekkie. "Spock's Brain" is often cited as one of the worst (if not the worst) Trek episodes of all time. The Gunfighters is usually considered one of if not the worst Doctor Who stories. I consider it to be worst, personally, with the possible exception of the OTT Horns of Nimon. 23skidoo 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "The Gunfighters" is quite as universally reviled as "Spock's Brain," though. A lot of people have professed to liking it (the writers of the Discontinuity Guide, for instance), and I'm not really aware of any notable contemporary criticism of the story (I didn't hear it mentioned much at all until Peter Haining singled it out for his vitriol, actually). More to the point, I seem to recall that "pure" historicals were already headed on their way out by that point, since Innes Lloyd (IIRC) supposedly did not like them. I think one of the old Doctor Who handbooks talked about this: I'll try to see if I can dig it up. My hunch, at this stage, is that while the sci-fi stories probably were slightly more popular with the public (it's hard to think of a historical that had the impact of any of the early Dalek stories, for instance), the primary reason for their total disappearance were the preferences of the production staff. I'll try and get back with some actual sources on the matter. – Seancdaug 18:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, that was what you were getting at. I think I saw "Spock's Brain" a long time ago. But I've never thought of The Gunfighters like that, and I'm not aware that most of the fans I know have. (Very good novelisation, BTW.) I think as a historical that wasn't released on video until relatively late on, it was overlooked more than reviled. If there can be a generality, I'd think the "Spock's Brain" award would usually be given to The Twin Dilemma or Timelash. Anyhoo, I've taken this way off topic... I suspect that, amongst other reasons, once the series was thought of as a sci-fi series, people stopped pitching historicals. --Whouk (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Gunfighters was heavily panned in the early Doctor Who Weeklies/Monthlies when a lot of the writing was done by Jeremy Bentham, and as a result the story has often been near the bottom of fan surveys. It was also, wrongly, believed to be the lowest rating story of all time (at least up until the mid 1980s), but actually outrated The Savages, The War Machines and The Smugglers (although the Audience Appreciation Index is the lowest of all time). Timrollpickering 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that Timelash probably occupies the Spock's Brain position in Who fandom more than anything else. Angmering 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, the lore of 1970s fandom. I can see them getting a (NPOV, naturally) mention in an article on Who fandom. My DWM writer flatmate has also fingered Peter Haining for the blame... --Whouk (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's "fingered Haining"? Sounds deeply unpleasant to me. Angmering 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Haining probably brought it to wider attention but if I've got the order of events correct then I think the story's notoriety amongst the core of UK fans at least predates Doctor Who: A Celebration. Timrollpickering 11:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phasing out of historicals 

message: I was under the impression that the userbox was using "Network" in the sense that Americans are familiar with, in that it's the transmitting channel. Possibly I'm mistaken. BBC One is, I suppose, technically speaking a network anyway, given that it's transmitted across a network of stations - the only difference being, of course, that (bar the local news opt-outs and a few more notable differences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) the "stations" as such have absolutely no separate on-screen identity or schedule variations of their own and are all owned by the BBC. 
Anyway, basically, if this heading doesn't mean the channel that transmits the thing, surely it ought to? Angmering 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Channel in the US would be the station: "Channel 46 Atlana", which is part of the CBS network. My impression is that network usually refers to the overarching organisation, channel to that particular um, channel/frequency on which it is broadcast. I would consider BBC One, Two, etc. as channels used to differentiate content, while BBC is still the overall network. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Network is a national/regional entity. Channel is a local entity. So here in Canada it was shown on the CBC network, but if you wanted to list the individual channels you'd have to list a couple dozen at least (CBKST, etc.). It's the same in the US. A show carried by the NBC network is -- in theory -- carried on all affiliates, nationwide, at the same time. Exceptions exist where a show is blacked out due to a station deciding not to air it (see Book of Daniel for an example). So to say BBC is correct (or BBC One if it's considered separate network on its one). Since it's a CBC co-production (at least the 2005-2006 series), I actually feel the CBC should also be listed under the Network banner ... but not Sci-Fi, or the Australian network, etc. because they aren't involved in making the thing. 23skidoo 02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking at some infoboxes on other UK show pages — Life on Mars, Countdown, Blake's 7, EastEnders etc, and they all use "Network" as the actual broadcasting channel — BBC One, Channel 4, etc. Angmering 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so they should. Unlike channels in the US, BBC One and BBC Two (and probably BBC Three and Four, for that matter, though digital channels are another kettle of fish) are each analagous to a US network. They're not regional stations which show roughly the same content, as provided by their affiliated network, they're two different entities, even though they're both controlled by the BBC. Which one carries a programme is is culturally significant, and should be listed. -- Guybrush 10:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well exactly, that's why I changed it the first time. Angmering 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, about the only place I've ever heard BBC1 called a network is Television Centre, where (at least a few years ago) BBC1 and BBC2 were known as Net 1 and Net 2 respectively. But given the cultural significance, especially when a programme, say, starts out on BBC2 and is sufficiently popular it moves to BBC1, I'd say it's absolutely right to list the specific channel under "Network". Anything else is just pedantry. --Mpk 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  BBC One isn't really a network, and the template is US-centric because the whole network syndication is quite unusual, but BBC itself is even less of a network - that would be like having "Network: Viacom".  Morwen - Talk 12:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the term "network" used in UK broadcasting to mean the basic aerial transmitted channels (e.g. "The network premier" of a film that's been cycled umpteen times on sattelite/cable/digital)? Timrollpickering 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel / Network

message: This is a respectful note to the uninitiated, since — having now been through a fair number of DW articles for grammatical errors, etc. — this is the one problem I seem to encounter more than any other.
To take a completely unrelated example, examine the following sentence:
:The pop group Coldplay's lead vocalist, Chris Martin, is also a talented pianist and guitarist.
Note that there is no comma before 'Coldplay', but there is before and after 'Chris Martin': the reasons simply being that Coldplay are not the world's only pop group, but Chris Martin is the group's only lead vocalist.
If you weren't familiar with this rule before, please adhere to it from now on, as it makes the life of pedants like myself so much easier!
Chris 42 19:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And please put the comma on both sides.  Too many writers omit the one after "Martin", which would be relatively harmless in this sentence but usually causes a syntactic muddle.  —Tamfang 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar: The defining comma 

message: Corrected some woefully poor information.
Doctor Who has never aired on CITY-TV in Toronto - let alone had the world-premiere of the 1996 movie!  CBC didn't air Doctor Who in 1964.  I assume Doctor Who Information Society means Doctor Who Information Network.  Maybe we need a Doctor Who in Canada page. Nfitz 04:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think where the confusion arose re: CBC is that I have a 1964 issue of the CBC Times promoting the show and including it in the listings ... however it's possible the issue might have come out right at the end of 1964. 23skidoo 14:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who in Canada