Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 6

message: or is there something funky afoot concerning Outpost Gallifrey? Really, I can't seem to get to the site at all and knowing how many Doctor Who articles link to this can certainly prove a great deal of a problem.. DrWho42 14:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working fine for me... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S.  There's a note on the front page explaining that the site may experience some delays due to high traffic volume this week.  I expect that's what caused your issues. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it just my browser.... 

message: An anon recently removed the word "arguably" from the sentence "Of all the monsters and villains, the ones that arguably most secured the series' place in the public's imagination were the Daleks."  Khaosworks reverted it, saying "reinserting qualifier to maintain NPOV".  But is it really necessary for NPOV?  Surely it's an unarguable fact that no other Doctor Who monster has had seeped as far into popular culture as the Daleks.  You may get the occasional Cyberman reference, but "Dalekmania" was a real historical phenomenon that no other Doctor Who monster has matched.  And it's also pretty unarguable that without the smash success of the Daleks in 1964, Doctor Who wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.  I think that we can do without the "arguably". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* I shy from definitive statements unless cites can be provided, but if people think it's so readily apparent that the Daleks are of that status (and I really can't argue convincingly against that, nor would I ultimately want to), then it's okay. I simply was trying to hedge all bets in case people questioned it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that strongly about it either, really, but it's my feeling.  Of course, if others feel that a case can be made for any of the other monsters, "arguably" can go back in — I just haven't encountered that argument myself, really. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur - there can be little doubt that the Daleks are, by a long chalk, the best known and most ingrained in popular culture. —Whouk (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree since the Daleks are a British cultural icon. No other Doctor Who villians can say that, really. GusF 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's like using the term "arguably" when referring to Marilyn Monroe as the Hollywood's most famous sex symbol. It's a verifiable fact. Dalek is even listed in the dictionary now ... they're like Star Trek's Klingons, which are inarguably the most famous monster on the show. I think it's fine to remove "arguably" in this case because, presumably, the proof that the Daleks were the most popular Doctor Who monster should be self-evident in the article Dalek. 23skidoo 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguably or not? 

message: At the end of the Companions section, there was this sentence...
"Freema Agyeman is to take the role of Martha Jones, the Doctor's next companion after Rose.[4]. Apart from her name, no details are currently available about her character."
This sentence has now been removed.  I think it should still be in there though.  I'd like to reinstate it, but please say if you object. Jamandell (d69) 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companions - Martha Jones reference 

message: Regarding the statement that Doctor Who is due to overtake Star Trek in terms of number of episodes in the 2007 series. Does this include the 13(?) Torchwood episodes? I presume the ST figure includes all the spin-offs. --Billpg 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I think I've said before (probably in the archive now), to avoid NOR we should stick with the count used by DWM for its Time Team feature, which is what it's set to ATM. —Whouk (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going by the DVM count, then, canon Doctor Who has already passed canon Star Trek (excluding films) in terms of number of instalments. --Kwekubo 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you don't count TAS, there are 704 episodes of "Star Trek" GusF 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad... --Kwekubo 02:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtaking Star Trek 

message: http://hollywoodreporter.com/thr/international/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002802642
Don't know if anyone wants to include it in the article but there you go. jdobbin 00:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings for Series 2 Finale 

message: There seems to be a bit of controversy over whether the diamond logo should be labelled the most popular or most familiar logo. I believe it was, as its use coincided with not only the Tom Baker era, but also the show's first serious syndication in North America. Maybe the wording can be tweaked in the caption a bit more, but I still think it's fair comment. 23skidoo 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, the diamond logo is probably historically the most familiar, for the reasons you suggest.  On the other hand, the current series has matched the Tom Baker era for popularity (at least in the UK), so an argument could probably be made that the current "taxicab" logo represents as popular an era.  (The general fan dislike of the taxicab logo complicates things slightly as well.)  Maybe the diamond logo caption should just note its use during the late Pertwee and Baker years, and readers can draw their own conclusions about popularity? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps if we include the term "historically" it might make things clearer. The current logo might be popular (BTW when did it start being called the "taxicab" logo? I always thought the nickname was "lozenge") but it has only been in use for 2 years, whereas the diamond logo was in use from 1973-80 and continued to be used on books and video releases for years afterwards, and when Virgin books launched the Missing Adventures books, they used the diamond logo, too. Calling it the "most popular" logo might be a bit problematic but I think a case could be made that it was the most widely-used logo (even moreso than the 1970-73 Pertwee logo which was revived by the 8th Doctor). So perhaps widely-used or most recognizable might be terms to consider. 23skidoo 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: Mowbray recently changed "The programme is one of the longest-running science fiction television series in the world" to "The programme is the longest-running...".  This has been discussed before, most recently here.  There are two problems with saying Doctor Who is the longest-running science fiction television programme.  First, there's a Japanese anime about a robot cat from the future, Doraemon, which has been running continuously since 1979, beating the original Doctor Who's 26-year run.  Second, if by "longest-running" you mean longest time between broadcast of first episode and most recent episode, The Twilight Zone beats Doctor Who with 44 years between its 1959 debut and the last ep of the 2003 UPN revival.  We had a long debate over how best to reflect these ambiguities, and decided that the best way was to say "one of the longest-running".  Of course, there are no binding decisions, and we can revisit the topic, but we should do so with discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree Doctor Who is beat by that Japanese series, Twilight Zone can't be counted because none of its incarnations ran for 26 seasons in a single run; I've never heard Twilight Zone up for consideration as the longest running due to the number of years since the first episode. Now if the show had run continuously, that would be a different thing. But this debate (and the previous one) is the only place I have ever seen this. 23skidoo 00:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Longest running show" is like "tallest building".  There are different criteria you can use for longest running show--longest from start to finish counting gaps, largest number of episodes, largest number of continuous seasons, longest in minutes, as well as the problem over whether to count series such as Star Trek as several shows or one show and whether to include movies and specials.  There is no such thing as a single unquestionable candidate for "longest running show". Ken Arromdee 17:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There sure isn't.  "Largest number of individual aired epsiodes" and "Longest time between premiere and last ep aired" seem to be the two leading candidates.  Should the reason why "Longest-running" is deprecated be right in the article, so as to preclude the argument having to be repeated?--Baylink 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need it in visible text — it's really a digression from the topic of Doctor Who as such — but it might be useful to put it in hidden text to give editors like Mowbray a heads-up that this has been discussed before and is less straightforward than it might at first appear.  I'll put something in. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And yet, Doctor Who was aimed at children at the get go - it only became a "family" show by virtue of popularity. Also, when we say "continuous", are we taking into account the 16 year hiatus? Or is "continuous" only applicable to the 1963-1989 run? You see what we mean about criteria? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think it's ridiculous to consider Twilight Zone at all because it was never in continuous production for all those years and that's what should be considered above all else. And Doraemon can easily be bypassed by stating Doctor Who is an "English-language science fiction series". In terms of Dark Shadows having more episodes, this is true but a) there is debate over whether Dark Shadows is truly "science fiction" (though if I recall there was a time-travel element to it), plus it may have done hundreds of episodes but it still only ran for 2 or 3 years which means in terms of production length even Star Trek: Enterprise has it beat. But the Doctor Who production office opened in 1963 and stayed open until actually 1990, so even if the new series were discounted we're still talking 26 years of continuous, uninterrupted operation (that little gap before Trial of a Time-Lord notwithstanding), and I still contend no English-language science fiction series comes close, not Twilight Zone (which had something like a 25-year production gap followed by another decade-long production gap) or Star Trek (which consisted of a number of different spinoffs). I think folks are playing with semantics to the excusion of actual fact. 23skidoo 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Guiness can sometimes be confusing, either because they have specific stipulations... or could possibly be mistaken in regards to some matters. For example the record for Longest Running Animated TV Series has been awarded to 'The Simpsons' which has been running since 1989 with 381 episodes... but I am not sure that is correct to say it is the longest running, Doraemon (again) beats it on most episodes (over 2000 according to ANN) and another anime Sazae-san beats in on the lenght of time it has been running (continusly since 1969) but the record book doesn't acknowledge this. --GracieLizzie 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should include this. Guinness is a well-established and recognised collection of records that is used worldwide. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's explicitly stated in the article that Guinness is making the claim. CovenantD 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest-running, revisited 

message: Guinness have given Doctor Who the title of "longest-running sci-fi show" , .  Should we incorporate this into the article?
(Incidentally, I don't understand how Guinness reckons that Stargate is the longest-running (consecutive) sci-fi show; surely 1963–1989 is longer than 1997–2006!  Even if you want to break at the 1986 hiatus, 1963–1985 still beats Stargate's 10 years!  But I digress...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guiness can sometimes be confusing, either because they have specific stipulations... or could possibly be mistaken in regards to some matters. For example the record for Longest Running Animated TV Series has been awarded to 'The Simpsons' which has been running since 1989 with 381 episodes... but I am not sure that is correct to say it is the longest running, Doraemon (again) beats it on most episodes (over 2000 according to ANN) and another anime Sazae-san beats in on the lenght of time it has been running (continusly since 1969) but the record book doesn't acknowledge this. --GracieLizzie 11:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should include this. Guinness is a well-established and recognised collection of records that is used worldwide. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it's explicitly stated in the article that Guinness is making the claim. CovenantD 21:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and re-revisited

message: Just found this[] article on BBC's official Doctor Who website. Gives the character's name and some minor details. I wouldn't feel right about trying to edit this information into the database, but this renders the last entry under "Companions" slightly obsolete. Jaerune 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure whether we should be replacing the image of Rose with Martha yet — wouldn't it be better to wait until we know a bit more about Martha than her name and (former) occupation?  I tend to think it's better to illustrate the concept of "Doctor Who companion" with someone who's known to the general public in the role than with the next one, who's only been introduced in newspaper and fan reports.  What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of those things - I felt that it was pretty much well established enough by now to be able to put her picture up, but I won't object if someone switches it back. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of what things?  I suppose this is a bit like the discussions currently going on at WT:WHO about "general" vs. "fan" approaches — perhaps a generalist approach would show the last well-known companion (Rose), while a fan approach would show the currently filming one (Martha). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was more like me trying to stave off the inevitable edit wars about putting Martha's picture up now that publicity photos are available. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Companion 

message: I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were just the forums, yes. However, the sites are more than just forums, and the link goes to the main pages of those sites, not the forum pages. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to hear any arquments for keeping this link? --My arguments for removing.
*This is a forum.
*The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group
*Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM.
If you have any further questions about the role of Yahoo Groups within a Wiki article, forward your concerns to Paul E. Ester. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Was just looking at old revisions of this article recently (I know, I was bored) and found this, intriguing addition:
In September 2002, BBC producers announced that the search was underway for a Ninth Doctor to appear in a new series of the popular show. The first for fourteen years.
This was added in the same month, September 2002. That's 2002, a whole year away before the return of the show was announced. What's even more surprising is that it remained in the article until an anon quietly removed it in May 2003.
So, what was it about? Was it just another of the many rumours that bounded around during the wilderness years? Did someone hear about something similar, but get the wrong end of the stick? It seems quite unusual that not only does something seemingly completely false get added, but it stays there for months on end. BillyH 20:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Between 1989 and 2003 there were literally dozens of rumors and false starts. At one point Spielberg was going to do a movie. Another report had David Bowie playing the Doctor. There was a press conference around 1991-ish where an actor no one had ever heard of was actually announced as being the new Doctor (though this wasn't a BBC press conference, but rather something connected with either a stageplay or a film ... it never got off the ground, anyway). And for about a year or so prior to the announcement of the TV series there was serious talk of the BBC launching a film project (in fact according to some sources the film plans are still there, much like there are plans for separate film and TV remakes of The Prisoner). However I'd say that the BBC probably didn't ever announce an actual series in 2002; maybe the original poster meant a movie production. OR -- it could be a reference to the Shalka Doctor. 23skidoo 19:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd thing in history 

message: I fixed some formatting on the recently added section about the Max Headroom pirate broadcast, but I'm of two minds about whether it's really notable enough to include in the main Doctor Who article.  Would it be better to move it to Doctor Who in America?  (It's already discussed at Horror of Fang Rock as well.)  How significant is this incident to Doctor Who as a whole? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not significant enough to be on the main article. At best, the America article or, as it already is, at Fang Rock. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.  I'll move it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was about to ask about that, seeing as how small-ish the segment was.. DrWho42 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Broadcast incident" 

message: Actually the Fandom section caught my eye before the latter, but I feel that it is in dreadful need for expansion when compared to the rest of the article. Besides that, the Merchandise is even smaller and perhaps something written up for List of episodes and serials could be done (well, prolly not but just pointing out another thing that seems to be lacking). DrWho42 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Viewership: Fandom and Merchandise. 

message: According to the infobox, Doctor Who was transmitted on 405-line until 1969, but it actually began using 625-line from either Dec 1967 or Jan 1968.--Jawr256 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those statements don't contradict, since it could be transmitting in both formats for a period of time. Ken Arromdee 15:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's more important to document what format it was recorded in (not what format it was transmitted in). Old and new standards were simulcast until 1985, much as the analogue and digital standards are simulcast now. As to the answer, it's complicated, since it appears some new cameras were used in the middle of some episodes partway through one season, and then at some stage a 625-line master was created rather than 405-line. I defer to Outpost Gallifrey for the best source of information. Whophd 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  405-line 

message: In the article summary, before the TOC, this statement is made:
A Christmas special, The Runaway Bride, is scheduled to air in December 2006 with a third series, starring David Tennant as the Doctor and Freema Agyeman as his companion Martha Jones, to follow in 2007 on BBC One.
Later, in the Companions section, this statement is made:
Freema Agyeman will play Martha Jones, the Doctor's next companion after Rose.[4] Apart from her name, the casting of family members and the information that she will be a medical student, no details are currently available about her character. She will not appear in the 2006 Christmas special.
I'm not sure how she can appear and not appear in the same episode.
Derek Price 15:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki-newbie is correct, but I've split the sentence for clarity's sake. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Statements about New Companion