Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 8

message: I've made a proposal to turn List of Doctor Who serials into a table.  Would appreciate comments on a proposal of the layout at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials.  Morwen - Talk 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Doctor Who serials]] tabulation

message: Given the creation of The Clockwise Man, and the fact that the numbering system of the new books are consecutive from the Ninth and Tenth Doctor onwards, and the number of books that are already out, is it time to finally consider merging the Ninth Doctor Adventures and Tenth Doctor Adventures into a New Series Adventures article (I've seen that being used more and more on OG). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd not be in any rush to do this, although wouldn't oppose it.  It will be interesting to see what happens when the BBC start releasing past doctor adventures again (which they have said they will, it's just a question of when) - especially if they continue to release Nine/Rose under the same brand.  Morwen - Talk 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC certainly won't be doing any Past Doctor Adventures any time soon — they no longer have a book division, following BBC Books' recent sale to Random House. T'will be interesting to see how this eventually affects the Who novels. Angmering 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with a merger as there is no conceptual difference between the books, they are one series. Tim! 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I suggested such a merger some time back.  I definitely support it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one more thing to decide: New Series Adventures or Doctor Who New Series Adventures or New Series Adventures (Doctor Who) or variations thereof? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "New Series Adventures" sounds a bit too generic, and the article should probably have "Doctor Who" in its title, but I don't have a preference between "Doctor Who New Series Adventures" and "New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could always go with "New Doctor Adventures". (It's descriptive at least!) --71.139.18.66 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely proposed a merger before (see discussion at Talk:Ninth Doctor Adventures#Merge with Tenth Doctor Adventures) and still feel the same way. "Doctor Who New Series Books" or "Doctor Who New Series Adventures" both seem fine to me; I'm not bothered really. As for the PDAs, they've passed on, they are no more, they have ceased to be. Bondegezou 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to take a shot at it. First thing to do is to merge the two page histories. Things may look weird for the next half hour or so, but please don't touch the articles until I give the all-clear. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's done. Now the infoboxes and redirects need fixing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes are fixed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, khaosworks! Bondegezou 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still scattered redirects that need fixing, but I'll leave it for others to start on those. Gonna sleep. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirects are finished, and I've moved the novels themselves from :Category:Ninth Doctor Adventures and :Category:Tenth Doctor Adventures to the new :Category:New Series Adventures, as well as the existing :Category:Ninth Doctor novels and :Category:Tenth Doctor novels.  I suppose we can wait 72 hours and speedy delete the defunct categories then. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Series Adventures

message: Not knowing anything about Harry Potter, I was just struck by the thought — do Harry Melling and Alfred Enoch appear together on-screen in any of the films at all? Be a nice little coincidence for Who fans if they did! Angmering 10:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope: no shared scenes so far, and I don't think their characters are ever in the same place in the books (so far) either, so they probably won't share screen time in the remaining films.  The two may not have met during filming, but they've probably both been at premieres or the like, so a photo of the two together might exist... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Random ''Doctor Who'' / ''Harry Potter'' query

message: Own article or no? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a minor characters list article it could be merged into? —Whouk (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - he's as major as Harriet Jones, arguably as much as Adam Mitchell, and almost certainly more so than Chang Lee, all of whom have articles. Before Doomsday however, I'd have said no way. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely keep.. There are more than enough Buffyverse and Charmedverse articles to set a precedent for characters who have appeared in multiple episodes. You could create a "Preachers (Doctor Who)" or a "Pete's World" article too, but it would make him uncategorizable...  and would be his article with other characters info tacked on, with links to Cybus and alternate Pete and Jackie. Keep as is. Zythe 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll resist the temptation to suggest that Chang Lee be redirected to the TV movie... —Whouk (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jake Simmonds]]

message: Anything worth salvaging from this? Tim! 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalek is too big already, I would suggest not merging stuff into there. On the other hand, the whole contents of the article appears to come from a single obscure book from 1964, making for a bit of a weak article. There has to be more material on the Dalek language available than this. I recall off the top of my head that there have been references that give the Dalek name for the Doctor (two different ones, IIRC) and some mention of Dalek poetry, those should be mentioned. Bryan 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's all there is, the article isn't worth keeping. As a list coming from one Dalek annual, it certainly isn't. The question is whether the glossary is notable, considering it's never been used anywhere else. Remove the list of words and everything else is already under the Culture heading in Dalek. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For that matter, are we sure this isn't a copyvio?  82.35.13.34 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A verbatim transcription of the glossary certainly is one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected it to Dalek. See Talk:Dalek language. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dalek Language]] 

message: Up for AFD again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who New Series 3 (second nomination)]]

message: Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 01:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tags up for deletion 

message: Does this really merit a page?  Should we merge it with Doctor Who spoofs or let it... sit? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's as worthwhile as the other entries in :Category:Viz characters. Tim! 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it, though?  I think most of the others at least made multiple appearances in the magazine.  Doctor Poo was a one-page strip that's had a subsequent half-life as a Flash animation.  I don't really feel strongly about it either way, but since it's got the project notice on it I figured we should discuss... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going with Tim on this one.. Anyways, it seems pretty well-made considering for something being what it is. Mmmm, if we simply merge however, it seems that the Doctor Who spoofs page seems to be crowding up quite a bit. DrWho42 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Doctor Poo]]

message: I have created a new user template that should replace the other 10 that are currently available. Please see  to see the work. This is in an effort to reduce the amount of user templates in hopes of keeping the user template deletionists from having too many complaints about the amount of them. I will be putting the 10 individual templates up for deletion, but that master template will do the same as the 10 did. Please allow this to happen.—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who wishes to vote in support or in opposition to the deletion request, the discussion is being held here. 23skidoo 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I replace the user template on the main project with this one? It is now even easier to use. - LA @ 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea: save server space. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it still costs money. --Thelb4 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, can I replace the one currently on the project page, or should I wait for more to decide whether the one I created will be the project's recognized user template? - LA @ 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone have any thoughts on moving people with the individual templates over to the master template? - LA @ 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user template by Doctor 

message: Thanks for the articles you listed here.  I added these to the Dr Who table but never got back to you.  Sorry about that, we're grateful for your help, Walkerma 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks from WP1.0 

message: we should compile a menu for all things doctor who becuase i'm lost (not being here in a few months) also could we have  a diagram showing how poerfull a certain darlex . becuase at the mo the black darlexs and the gold are as powerful as each other (they are not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madcowpoo (talk • contribs) 
:Is this what you had in mind?  It's at the bottom of the most important Doctor Who pages, and nearly all the others can be accessed from one of the lists included there.
:I'm not quite sure what you mean about the relative power of the Daleks — the Dalek hierarchy has been portrayed different ways in Doctor Who's long history, and it's all addressed in Dalek variants.  We can't really come up with One Official Dalek Hierarchy here, because it would be original research.  Or are you talking about firepower?  That's never really been addressed in the programme, so again we're limited by the no original research policy.  Also, when you say the black and gold Daleks are as powerful as each other, what article are you referring to? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon?  Citercans? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Citizens". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Thanks for the translation.  I think that the role of the Dalek Emperor is clear from his title, and the rest of the matter is adequately explained at Dalek variants. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  menu? and darleks! 

message: Since it appears we have a difference of opinion here, let's try and trash it out. The SF Citations for OED site lists both versions, and lists both US and UK uses for both of them, so the idea that one is "American" or one is "UK" does not fly. 
*alternate universe: http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/228 (antedating 1950)
*alternative universe: http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/228 (antedating 1944)
There are also cites for alternate future, alternative future, etc., but I think it's clear from this that either use is acceptable. For the sake of anchors in articles, sidestepping the issue as  has done by making it (parallel) is probably a decent compromise. But in the same spirit of consistency, we should also try to figure out which one we should use, or whether it simply should be left alone rather than changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The four scripts of the 2006 cybermen episodes generally use parallel, so it should either be parallel universe or parallel earth in relation to those and those characters. Alternate/alternative future is a more awkward one. Tim! 12:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of Pete's World, I have absolutely no problem with this classification, as long as the anchors are preserved. My main concern is that the reason given for the edit warring over alternative/alternate is a dubious one given the etymological history. I raise this because of how we want to use it in future articles involving alternate/alternative universes. My view is that either use is acceptable and should not be changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See Alternate history (fiction). —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But getting back to the original question, "alternate" means "different", whereas "alternative" gives more of a feeling of "a different choice". If you catch my drift. --NP Chilla 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we're not dealing with an adjective ("alternate"/"alternative") but a noun phrase, "alternate universe", so the analysis must go to the entire phrase itself, not focusing on whether "alternate" or "alternative" is more correct. The fact remains that both terms have been and are used in both American and UK contexts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search here for Alternate universe which redirects to the Multiverse (science) article. In that article's  Fictional multiverses section there was a link to the article Parallel universe. There was also a link to Alternate history (fiction). Alternative universe redirects to Parallel universe. So, use Parallel universe instead. - LA @ 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you come to a decision yet on this, khaosworks? - LA @ 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case it wasn't clear, my view is that either is acceptable, although my personal preference is for "alternate universe". Right now as far as Pete's World is concerned there's no real problem as such because of Tim's compromise wording for parallel universe, but I was more concerned about any future uses outside of the Pete's World context. I was waiting for more comments. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate universe or alternative universe

message: An anonymous editor recently added a list of audio, novel, comic and short story appearances to Melanie Bush, and Tim and I tweaked and polished it so it's closer in format to the lists of appearances on each Doctor's page.  Do we want to add a list of appearances like this to each companion's page, and if so, is this a good format to follow?  (I figure it's best to get a consensus on the format before we add the list to dozens of pages, so nobody's energy is wasted in clean-up.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a nice format, and I think such a section on each companion page would add value.—Litefoot 06:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion appearances 

message: * 
The aforementioned article has been nominated for deletion.  Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles listed at Articles for deletion 

message: Hey, folks.  :Image:10dr19.jpg was recently tagged with  and .  Since the uploader ( hasn't been around lately, I've been trying to provide what's necessary for the image.  I think I've taken care of the rationale (although I confess that I'm still fairly uncertain about the intricacies of fair use), but I'd like some help on the sources.  Are these images all publicity photos, or are some of them from screenshots?  (I was thinking the Peter Davison one might be.)  Is any member of the Project au fait with the precise requirements for image sourcing here?  Do we have to find the copyright date for each image, and the circumstances of its release, or is it OK just to say "promotional images released between 1963 and 2005"?  (I'm also asking here, but I thought I'd mention it here as well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, all of them are from publicity photos. I know my original collage was. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've taken care of what the fair use policy requires — while I was at it, I wrote explicit fair use rationales for all the images used in Doctor Who and put tags in the article itself, as recommended here.  We should all probably make an effort to ensure that all the images used in project pages are appropriately tagged, since Wikipedia as a whole is becoming more strict about such things, and current policy says copyrighted images without fair use rationales can be deleted quickly: within 48 hours for newly uploaded images, and within 7 days of notification of original uploader for images uploaded before 13 July 2006.  Although we've probably got some images whose fair use rationale is weak, I think that if we work together we can ensure that we keep most of our pretty pictures. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten Doctors collage 

message: Hi Im not a member of this project, but Ive been poking round some of your articles and have found them to be fascinating and generally very well written. One thing that I noticed though is that you cite the names of episodes/serials frequently when discussing continuity, which is great but I imagine that it would be much more informative if you also mentioned the original airdates of those stories (or if thats not possible time-stamped them somehow). Apologies if this issue has been debated and resolved in the past. Hueysheridan 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, Huey.  That's something we haven't been very consistent about; we do sometimes write the year of broadcast when mentioning a serial or episode — e.g. "The Deadly Assassin (1976) — but I don't think we've established a project-wide standard on it.  I think it's a good idea to at least mention the year of broadcast, to provide context for readers who aren't up on every nook and cranny of Doctor Who.  I don't think we need to state the full broadcast date — that's mentioned at each serial's page — but a year is useful.  (Huey, did you have something more complex in mind when you say "time-stamp", or just an inline mention of the year?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this would be a useful addition. Litefoot 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I had in mind was some more info about when the stories were filmed/first broadcast to, as you say, provide  more context. I guess if the episode pages themselves give airdates then a year would be sufficient. Anyway thanks for the quick reply! Hueysheridan 11:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You should time-stamp episodes with original airdates or something

message: Ladies and gentlemen: Sarah Jane Investigates.
Would it be premature to put it in :Template:Doctor-who? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I think it's a bit premature for the whole article. I'd have hung fire on it until we had a bit more confirmation. Angmering 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough — I suppose I was just excited.  We'll see what develops over the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably too early for the template (K9 adventures isn't added yet), but otherwise good ;-) Tim! 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Sarah Jane Investigates'' 

message: More AfD fodder? Comments, please. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tidied it up a bit. It probably fails under WP:NN and WP:WEB. Maybe WP:VANITY. --Thelb4 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now up for deletion. --Thelb4 10:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Doctor Who Reference Guide]]