Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 12

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: Someone has created Doctor Who: Season One through Doctor Who: Season Six, in the past there have been a few of these and they have been redirected to the list of serials, but I think it ought to be raised and discussed to see what people think. Tim! 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think these are necessary. Given that we already have individual articles for every serial/episode, we don't need a season by season breakdown with synopses, not to mention screenshots (which he's left a space for). Given that we've had this discussion before, I'm going to go ahead and turn these into redirects before he makes more. (I'll probably try and find the old discussion in the archive first, so I can point to it on his talk page. If somebody beats me to it, feel free!) --Brian Olsen 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, scratch that - I can't actually find anywhere where this has been discussed before. The closest I could find was at the talk page for the serials list, but it doesn't look like any consensus was ever reached. I hate to just redirect a bunch of pages somebody created without at least being able to point to somewhere that says that we think it's a bad idea... --Brian Olsen 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ehh, really not necessary seeing since we've already have a list covering all the seasons (though, I'd rather it be details on the season {i.e. production} itself than the episodes therein). DrWho42 19:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — there might be an argument for having articles on the production details of Doctor Who seasons, but there's no need for these lists.  Between List of Doctor Who serials and the episode articles, they're redundant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've turned these into redirects to List of Doctor Who serials. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons articles 

message: :Gallifrey Stories
:Master Stories
:Cybermen Stories
:Dalek Stories
:Unit Stories
DonQuixote 19:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems functional.--Aderack 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems to solve the problem.  DonQuixote 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I knew there had to be something more elegant in the wings.--Aderack 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: Couldn't (Shouldn't) "Return of the Daleks" be put in the 7th Doctor's Chronology?  It can hand in hand with "The Veiled Leopard", since he is companionless and they are Doctorless?  Should it be placed in release order with the rest of the Ace/Hex adventures?
The Core-Man 16:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Doctor says that Ace and Hex are "all gone now".  I think it's set later in his personal timeline.  Of course, what you or I think is really irrelevant, because unless we can find a reliable source any placement is original research. Best to keep it as "placement unknown", I think. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Return of Daleks in the Chronology

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: does anyone know where i can get a clip off the internet of the 2006 intro (the part where it shows the TARDIS in the vortex, "David Tennant" and then "Doctor Who") to put on powerpoint. it's for a project. plz reply on my user talk page. thx --I.W 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wouldn't put it past YouTube on having it. I'd say: once you find the clip/intro uploaded there, just ask the whoever uploaded it to send your way. DrWho42 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: The doctorwhobox on the right hand side of story pages contains various facts, but I wonder if the IMDB external link. Would this be better placed under External Links instead or, given that the link provides little or no additional information, should it be removed altogether? --The Missing Hour 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the IMDb link is pretty common for television and film articles: it's in  and a lot of other templates in :Category:Television infobox templates. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who Box

message: Please go to the Time Lord article and see its talk page as this article has been nominated for a GA status. However, the nomination is currently on hold and some changes have been suggested; please see the articles talk page! Smomo 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Time Lord]] article nomination for Good Article

message: Another project someone with energy could take on is ensuring that all our images have the proper license and fair use rationale.  This is important because the rules on fair use are being constantly restricted and applied more thoroughly, and images that aren't properly tagged are subject to deletion.  We need to make sure that all the images in our articles are properly licensed (use  for actual publicity shots, use  for screenshots).  We also need to ensure that the images have an appropriate fair use rationale, fully explicated on the image page and indicated thus in the article:
: 
(The last part isn't enforced very strongly, but it's probably still a good idea to include.)  The rationale on the image page should be specific to each article that includes it: see :Image:10thplanet.jpg for an example of a rationale dealing with several pages.  That image page can be used as a model for screenshots, and :Image:Daleknew.jpg is a decent model for images taken from publicity shots.
There are many editors on Wikipedia who would be happy to remove every fair use image from Wikipedia.  Let's not help them, shall we? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Since we've got the "In Print" section going for every serial novelised, I personally thought a novelisation infobox would be helpful for each of them (i.e. author(s), cover artist, novelisation that comes after, &c). DrWho42 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure — I certainly see the advantage for an infobox with author, publication date and cover artist.  I'm not so sure whether "novelisation that comes after" is of much use — is anyone likely to read Target novelisations in publication order, or in the order of the number in the series?  But that's a small point — a novelisations infobox in general is a good idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't rule out the possibility, but I can see convenience in linking to the novelisation published after (i.e. for collectors and so forth). They are already ordered in such the way along the List of Doctor Who novelisations. DrWho42 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't and I shall do my part in helping out. DrWho42 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't object, but if you're going to do that, you should change the "Episodes" section on the main project page - that has a recommended order for sections, and "In print" is listed above "Production." --Brian Olsen 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I've changed it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, anyone? DrWho42 23:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funky, looks good to me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me too.  I'm still not sure whether the preceded by/following fields are necessary, but if other folks think they'd be useful I won't object too strenuously. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's an example through the use of that template:
DrWho42 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I added the cover artist field correctly. Smomo 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me — I made one very minor change ("Cover Artist" to "Cover artist", to match the cases of the other fields).  Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novelisation Infobox 

message: Would we simply use the aforementioned template or create a new one for the Target Books? Some of the things listed are rather given.. DrWho42 07:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example through the use of that template:
DrWho42 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I added the cover artist field correctly. Smomo 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me — I made one very minor change ("Cover Artist" to "Cover artist", to match the cases of the other fields).  Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use [[Template:Doctorwhobook]]?

message: At Barnstar and award proposals, there's been a call for comments from WikiProject members about the proposed barnstar.  Any interested project members should chime in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for opinions

message: As of today, the application for our WikiProject Barnstar was completed successfully. The image and its template have been added to the WikiProject Barnstar page, and also to our WikiProject page. See there for more details. Smomo 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnstar Application Completed

message: in Battles in time issues 8 (The Ood: Slaves of the Beast!) to issue 11 (Clockword Robots: Automatic Assassins!) the 10th Doctor had a companion (Jayne Kadett). Can i put that on the 10th doctor's page so it looks like this.
Also can i make a page/section on Kadett. what does anyone else think. plz notify me on my userpage when u reply on here.
thx. And in Doctor Who Adventures issues 20 and 21 the Doctor befreinds Kara McGravy, and in issue 22 and 23 (possibly 24 if the story goes over 3 issues ect , which is not ussally the case) he befreinds Daisy White. Are these concidered spin-off companions or are they people the Doctor just meets in a place he's visiting. McGravy hasn't travelled in the Tardis (not in the comic anyway) and neither had White, not yet anyway. wat do u think?--I.W 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  I'd say it depends on whether the comics that Kadett appears in constitute one story, or several stories.  (I haven't read Battles in Time.)  If it's one story, I'd say that she doesn't quite qualify, but if it's more than one story you could add her to Tenth Doctor as you suggest, and also add her to List of companion characters in Doctor Who spin-offs.  I'd hold off on Daisy until the DWA story ends, to see if she travels with the Doctor or not, but if she does she could be added too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kadett appears (as i said above) issue 8 to 11--I.W 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but is that four different stories, or one story in four parts?  Or two two-part stories?  That's what I'm asking. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's sort of 1 stroy in 4 parts, but it's not a case of cliffhanger, e.g at the end of issue 8, they are in the destroyed Cyber-base, but in issue 9 they are in a sort of airport took over by the cybermen. And she does travell in the TARDIS. --I.W 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a companion to me, then.  If Olla the Heat Vampire can be listed on Seventh Doctor, I don't see any reason why Jayne Kadett can't be listed for the Tenth.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe it would be best formatted "Jayne Kadett (books)", primarily as it could possibly be removed by somebody who only watches the television series. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The character is from the comics, not the books, and I presume that if it's listed as "in spin-offs" with a link to the entry at List of companions from Doctor Who spin-offs (or whatever it's called today) that would be sufficient explanation. See box to right.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th doctor spin of companions. 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#Category:Television_producers_by_series for a category deletion nomination of :Category:Doctor Who producers, :Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures producers and :Category:Torchwood producers. Tim! 07:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV directors by series (which includes :Category:Doctor Who directors and :Category:Torchwood directors) and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 16#TV writers by series (which includes :Category:Doctor Who writers, :Category:Torchwood writers and :Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures writers).  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding :Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: I'm building a list of the articles that we have edited to a good standard that have received awards (GA or FA) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Awarded_articles. Please can you contribute any articles you know of with awards, especially GAs, at that page. Thanks. Smomo 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with awarded status 

message: Is anyone going to create a page for this? We have one for I am a Dalek.
:The page will be made eventually. It takes a little while to make pages, but I am confident that it will appear soon. --Thelb4 08:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started it :) could someone who has read the book at a synopsis? --GracieLizzie 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Made of Steel

message: Apparently on the basis of some timeline-related article on The West Wing being successfully deleted (on its third nomination) recently an editor as decided that UNIT dating controversy has to go as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNIT dating controversy. 23skidoo 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UNIT dating controversy up for AFD

message: What with the release to the public domain of several good quality TARDIS images, might now be the time to update all of our templates and logos? I propose the new TARDIS image, :Image:TARDIS1.png, be used instead of the old police box image we use currently. Any thoughts? Smomo 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion.  All in favour? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. Angmering 09:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That isn't possible because the Doctor Who logo is a copyrighted image, and these templates will be used outside of article space.  (Wikipedia's fair use guidelines forbid the use of copyrighted images outside of article space.  The advantage of this new TARDIS image is that it has been released into the public domain.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think so. Make it so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done it. Smomo 21:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lookin' good! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Make it so?" Good grief... Anyway, the new TARDIS image looks good in all the templates! Angmering 07:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What, I can't like Star Trek too? ;) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with liking Star Trek. However, using phrases such as "Make it so" is almost as bad as those people who like to use the expression "when the universe was less than half its present size" to describe something that happened a very long time ago. Angmering 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Miaow!! Saucer of milk for Mr Angmering. ;) - NP Chilla 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets talk about images! 

message: The lastest CFD nominations are for , ,  and .
List of Doctor Who actors has also replaced the cast members category... Tim! 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and List of Doctor Who directors... Tim! 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bollocks, I forgot to rescue the table of actors with classic and new series actors before the page was deleted. Angmering 11:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent, well done Tim. Question now is where should it go? On the list of actors page? Angmering 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so — I'll put it there for now, at least. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about adding people who've appeared in the Classic Series and Torchwood? Or people who have appeared as different characters in the new series and Torchwood? I'm thinking of John Normington (Trevor Sigma - The Happiness Patrol, Tom Flanagan - "Ghost Machine") and Yasmin Bannerman (Jabe - "The End of the World", DI Kathy Swanson "They Keep Killing Suzie"). --GracieLizzie 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More CFDs 

message: Not directly related to the project, but I'm posting this here as it seems to be the place where it's likeliest to be noticed by those who might be interested. I've done a lot of work on this article, and currently have it up as a featured article candidate. It's not attracting many votes, however, so if you do get the chance to read it and cast your vote for yea or ney I'd be very grateful. Yes, I know it's an article about a man who loathed and detested Doctor Who, but I think he deserves a decent Wikipedia article and I know that many fans of Who are also fans of his work, hence my posting this here. Cheers all. Angmering 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now passed its nomination and made FA status. Soon there shall be more Quatermass FAs than Doctor Who ones. Oh yes. Then the world shall be mine, mine! Mwahahahahahaha...... Etc and so forth. Cheers all! Angmering 11:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nigel Kneale]]

message: Is there an article on non-fiction Doctor Who books? I'm wondering if there should be a place to list things like Travel without the TARDIS or Jean-Marc Lofficier's multi-volume programme guides for Target, or for that matter works such as The Making of Doctor Who or the recent Doctor Who: The Inside Story? 23skidoo 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-fiction books

message: Is it really necessary that every bloody article about the books and so on has to have that line about 'the canonical status is disputed'. It seems rather childish and Un-encyclopedic. They're also all printed with black ink on white paper, that seems about as relevant as tedious debates on internet message boards which is all 'canon' really amounts to. 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, putting it there is pretty much a requirement.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep — the general consensus from previous discussions seems to be that when we present information from non-television sources, it's a violation of NPOV and NOR not to have that disclaimer, because otherwise people might interpret its inclusion as a claim that the books (audios, comics, lollipop wrappers, whatever) are a "canonical" part of the Doctor Who narrative — and Wikipedia should neither make nor refute that claim.  Yes, "canon" is a fairly absurd concept that really matters only to the sorts of people who habituate Outpost Gallifrey's forum (of which I am, of course, a prime example) — but it's not unlikely that someone reading an article on, say, United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, might be one of that sort.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is the wording: as it stands, it implies that there is a real thing called "canonical status", but that's actually a shorthand for a complex set of notions, many of which are fan-derived and drifing into original research and non-verifiable territory. Unlike some other TV shows, Dr Who doesn't have a defined canon from the BBC. Moreover, saying the canonical status is "disputed" over-emphasises the dispute, which is largely confined to fans, when most of the BBC and most people who watch/read Dr Who simply don't care. We're being biased (violating NPOV) if we stress the dispute but underplay, say, the contractual nature of the works: i.e. whether they were officially licensed by the BBC, or even produced by the BBC. Bondegezou 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon

message: For anyone interested please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Tim! 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review of [[:Category:Doctor Who people]] 

message: In the Internal Counter-Intelligence Service article there is the following paragraph under ICIS Dating which doesn't look quiet right to me:
:The UNIT audios were set in "the near future", with Andrea Winnington said to have been born in the 1980s and Chaudhry taking about the price of alcohol in euro in "The Longest Night"; presumably it was intended to take place in the mid-to-late 2000s. However, the general public in the plays does not believe in alien life; since this was proven to exist in The Christmas Invasion, the plays must take place before then; and since the Prime Minister isn't Harriet Jones, it must take place before Aliens of London. The only time the audios can take place is in 2005 and early 2006, before the Slitheen attack.
As has been pointed out on the corresponding talk page, not that many people seem to believe in aliens in Torchwood and TSJA either. Could someone more familiar with the Big Finish Audios and/or the whole UNIT dating issue rectify this? Thanks. --GracieLizzie 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think that this paragraph has a bit too much original research.  This sort of construction, putting stories together into a coherent timeline, is always a bit dicey unless it's been done by a third-party reliable source (such as Lance Parkin's AHistory).  When you add in the complicating factor that the UNIT miniseries was written independently of the Doctor Who production team in Cardiff, it gets even more dodgy.  Unless a citation can be provided for an outside source drawing conclusions about the time placement of the UNIT stories, I'd favour removing the paragraph altogether.  (I don't recall offhand whether Parkin addresses ICIS or not; if he does, the paragraph could be recast as his interpretation and cited appropriately.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable paragraph on the ICIS page  

message: I was going to go ahead and put  on the talk page of The Mill (post-production), but though I should check if they fall under the scope of the project first. --GracieLizzie 16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think so — they're as Doctor Who-related as, say, Murray Gold or Mat Irvine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it :) I was a little unsure, and when I noticed BBC Radiophonic Workshop doesn't seem to be part of the project either I was even more unsure. --GracieLizzie 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why the Radiophonic Workshop wouldn't fit as well — surely Doctor Who is one of the things they're best known for. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so too, I'll add it. --GracieLizzie 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the article for The Mill fall under the scope of the Wikiproject? 

message: Has the idea of incorporating the assessment scale system which appears on other wikiprojects? I quiet like it myself, I was wonderin if others do or if anyone has any reservations. --GracieLizzie 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've considered this before, but kept putting off bringing it up because it always seems that we've got enough on the "to do" list as it is.  It could be a useful addition.  Of course, we should spend some time figuring out the criteria for assessment before we start slapping tags on talk pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh definitely, one of the things that puts me off assigning a quality to pages that have them is the fact I have no idea what the "quality criteria", or whatever, are. --GracieLizzie 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm taking it upon myself to modify the doctorwhoproject template accordingly. The process of assessment using the functionality of the Mathbot can aid a project in many ways - particularly in collating and categorising. It will take a couple of weeks in total probably, to smooth out the finer details, but the creation and modification of the template shouldn't impede the current progress of the project in any way. --Mal 05:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  A further thought: spin-offs such as Torchwood could use the same template treated in a similar way as the Beatles template treats major individuals related to the group - Epstein, McCartney, Martin, Lennon, Starr and Harrison. --Mal 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the introduction of assessment scales, once the work is done, will be a great way of monitoring and accessing the success of the Project. One can then see the improvement from month to month and then act accordingly. LuciferMorgan 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Top articles would be Doctor Who, Dalek, Cyberman, Doctor (Doctor Who), Master (Doctor Who), Time Lord, and possibly List of Doctor Who serials. But I think we should wait a bit, though. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment scales? 

message: I just finished creating/debugging a Serial/Episode navigation template.  I think it's needed because scrolling back to the top of the page to go click on the link to the next episode is a little too tiresome.  This template is primarily for the bottom of a serial/episode page.

Check out An Unearthly Child for a preview. DonQuixote 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort, but I'm opposed. Some serials already have multiple navboxes, and they're starting to look cluttered. Since this info is already present in the infobox, I don't think it's necessary. --Brian Olsen 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus at the TV project is these are redundant to infoboxes (I agree with this assertion), a few of these have now been deleted. Matthew 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that I agree that it's redundant with the infobox, since the infobox already contains fields for the preceding and succeeding serials.  It's pretty, but I don't think it helps the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that I am not a part of the project so I apologize for sticking my nose in, but, as I have been working to bring a more uniform look to the pages I thought that I would add a couple of comments. First, I would agree that they are redundant and add to the clutter at the bottom of some articles. The Five Doctors for instance already has five navboxes and this one might get lost among them. Second, if scrolling to the top is tiresome simply hit the 'Home' button on your keyboard and it takes you back to the top where clicking on the link to the next story is a breeze (believe me I have been doing that a lot over the last week). My work on the serials pages has brought up one other subject that I wanted to bring to the attention of you good members of the Wikiproject Doctor Who so (see below). MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serial/Episode Navigation Template 

message: As I have been going through the stories pages and have been trying to give them a more uniform look (mostly moving the 'In Print' section so that it is above the releases section - I had seen a few other editors doing this and it seemed to make sense as, with only a few exceptions, the books came out before the VHS etc releases) I found that there are several different names for the section headers covering the various formats in which the stories have been released.
As I thought about whether there was one title (ie Continuity or Production) that could be used on every article a few thoughts came up:
#My first thought was to name them all 'Broadcast and release' but the more I thought about this the more it seemed like the original air dates should be a part of this section, but that information is already in the opening paragraph on each page and in the infobox so there was no need to add it here unless the wikiproject wanted to move it here. None of this is actually an argument against using this title.
#Still start the section with the word 'Broadcast' (as many pages have interesting info about the original and repeat airings) and then use the name of the media that the story has been released on in the header - ie 'VHS', 'CD', 'DVD' and (occasionally) 'Cassette'. This also allows for adding DVD to the title as the stories come out in that format.
#Leave them as they are as it might not be that big of a deal.
While I would lean toward suggestion number two, I'm sure that you members of the project will have other ideas. In any event, this is all just food for thought. Should the project come to a decision on this matter I would be happy to offer my services as a wikignome to go through and change the titles to any form that is decided upon
One last word of thanks to all of you members of this Doctor Who project. I think that you do remarkable work and keep up the good job. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main project page gives the order and titles for sections that we had agreed on - there weren't a whole lot of people involved in the discussion, though, so it's certainly fine to open it up again. It looks like it does say to put the "In print" section above the releases section, so you're quite right to do so! The title of the "Broadcast and releases" section has always bothered me - it looks like we did settle on your second option. The CD releases never occcured to me, but I think you're right that they should be included in that section. I've no problem with changing the title of that section - "Broadcast and (blank) releases" - depending on what's appropriate. It still feels consistent, even if technically it's not. And lastly - why not add your name to the list of Project members? You're already doing the work! --Brian Olsen 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section titles for the various formats in which the serials have been released

message: # Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to support

message: Our article on TARDIS says that the patent office has granted the TARDIS trademark to the BBC .  This link is unavailable at time of writing.  They rejected a challenge from the Metropolitan Police, which has never used the word TARDIS but objected to the police box image.  This suggests to me that the image itself is a trademark of the BBC.
On this basis. I suggest that it might be a good idea to stop using that trademark image on Wikipedia to signify the Doctor Who WikiProject, as in the use of :Image:TARDIS1.png (which although a free image, employs the BBC trademark image) in Template:Doctorwhoproject. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before (please see above) and the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image. Please read all the previous discussions above to stop us wasting more time on this issue. Thank you. Smomo 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Could you please show me where on this page the use of BBC trademarks is discussed? --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, it's here. Smomo 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I can't find any mention of the trademark. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony's right that we didn't address the trademark issue specifically.  I thought I'd asked about it at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., but it looks like I didn't.  What exactly is the policy on free images of trademarked designs?  I don't want to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but :Template:StarTrek-stub uses an image of the (presumably) trademarked Enterprise design (well, one of them), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate uses :Image:Stargate-color.png, which is free enough to be on Commons, but is also probably a trademarked design.  I can find a lot of information about copyrights on Wikipedia, but little on trademarks and how they affect an image's suitability for use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the sixth page inside cover of every recent doctor who novel produced by BBC Books it says "'Doctor Who', 'TARDIS' and the Doctor Who logo are trademarks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under licence." I don't know if that helps, but it says the same inside all the books if you want a ref.--Wiggstar69 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's referring to the TARDIS as a fictional bigger-on-the-inside time and space travelling machine, rather than specifically the police box exterior. Angmering 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TARDIS trademark

message: Someone keep an eye on this. There's this incredibly OR "Sontaran controversy" section where the poster has said they'll revert whomever deletes it unless they discus their reasons "in depth" in talk. Personally, I don't see any reason to discuss what is a clear violation of OR with no citations in depth, but there you go. Article could also use cleaning up.
Real life has been keeping me busy, so I've not been keeping as close an eye on things as I used to (and there was great rejoicing), and my threshold for Wikidrama has lowered considerably. Anyway, that article needs work, if not simply merger into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, since the Judoon have only appeared in one story so far. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merger sounds like the best option to me. Percy Snoodle 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Judoon]]

message: I hope people agree with me in that this page is getting too long, is it time for an Archive?--Wiggstar69 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who wants to archive the page can do so — I've done it in the past, but I've been crazy busy in real life lately and haven't had as much time for Wikipedia as I'd like.  The archive procedure I'd been using for this page is a bit archaic (it was the recommendation at WP:ARCHIVE at one point, but hasn't been for ages).  If you don't want to bother with the index, I can do that when things are less insane for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys - weren't me who nominated. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a silly nomination. Smomo 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that view, but let's leave it at that. LuciferMorgan 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cool, as otherwise it'll likely be defeatured in a month considering it's lack of cites. LuciferMorgan 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who missing episodes FAR

message: Thought I should bring Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy to people's attention.  Percy Snoodle 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats interesting, I wanted it to be Doctor who but it looks like its neither of the shows, I wonder why they cant come to a decision.--Wiggstar69 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated this rather pathetic article for deletion. Angmering 11:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy 

message: Hi. You folks might like to keep an eye on the contribs of , who's recently been inserting a swathe of apparently spurious additions into various Doctor Who-related articles and lists.--cjllw | TALK 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious additions