Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 4

message: So we've got a debate, of sorts, about which image to use to illustrate the ten Doctors.  Until recently, the image was:
It was recently replaced with: 
I think I prefer the old one: the images are slightly clearer, and the "clockwise" caption takes up less room.  (It also has a nice pun, "clockwise" for a Time Lord.)
Let's hear from others, and go with whatever consensus emerges. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there might be a way to use the second image elsewhere? There was some effort put into it; it would be great to be able to find a home for it. 23skidoo 23:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. Aquanostra also provided another alternative, which is slightly better but still not quite as good as the original, IMO. I've put all four here for comparison & discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ten Doctors 

message: Actually, while I now don't mind the color shots of the 1st and 2nd Doctors (or even the lastest version of the 4th Dr), the 3rd Dr should really be in red, and the 7th Dr should really have his HAT since he's the one Doctor who 'always' wore a hat. Furthermore, not only would it be a shame to have the 5th Dr without his famous celery (and in the new photo that I chose, he seems to have a similar stance as the 10th Dr), but I really like the front shot of the 8th Dr for it shows off his costume more. Anyway, here are 2 more versions...
In the bottom version (which I'm willing to go with), the 8th and 7th Doctors are facing each other just like the 2nd and 3rd Doctors are facing each other...
These are the best that I can do until I get my scanner fixed. aquanostra9Aquanostra9 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like the composition of 10xx3-copy.jpg (the latest version).  The only niggling concern I have is the resolution on the Colin picture, but that's not urgent.  I'm fine with this version, for now at least. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have issues with the 3rd Doctor looking like he sat on something and that picture of Colin is definitely not flattering on reflection. But I'll leave it to others to decide which is the way to go. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My pref is for the Third Doctor from :Image:Dw107.jpg and the Sixth from :Image:Dw109.jpg, which is a more flattering (and representative) shot. —Whouk (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the Third Doctor shouldn't look like he has a "Nibbles" up his butt. PMA 03:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final image? 

message: Is there really not an article associated with the Chronology of Doctor Who?  I.e. the history of the Dcotro Who universe from start to finish?  it would be interesting to see how all the Doctor's fit in.  Also how an earlier Doctor could be witnessing an event in history that a later Doctor bumped into as well.  I think at least four of the Doctors have visited the end of the Earth when the sun turns into a Red Giant. -Husnock 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's been thought about but not done, generally because such a timeline wouldn't fit within Wikipedia guidelines, being as it is original research, not to mention POV since there is no objective consistency to the Doctor Who timeline, and any kind of chronology requires specific assumptions. Then there's the nightmare of what to include, what to exclude, UNIT dating... just have a look at AHistory by Lance Parkin and you'll see the difficulties involved. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Parkin's book is pretty substantial. I don't think a chronology article is feasible in the Wikipedia environment. Check out the massive (and I mean massive) list of published and broadcast Doctor Who at the Doctor Who Reference Guide . The best thing to do would be to pick the most important highlights and include them in each Doctor's article, which sort of being done already. 23skidoo 04:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When did a new edition come out of Parkin's book? 23skidoo 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just published by Mad Norwegian Press about a month ago, released together with About Time 1. It covers all the books up to The Gallifrey Chronicles, the 2005 season and all the audios up to Terror Firma.--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I'll have to get my hands on it; I enjoyed the earlier version. I guess the title had to change because of Virgin's original version. I wonder if Mad Norwegian might reprint an updated version of the Time Lord RPG book? 23skidoo 15:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology of Doctor Who

message: Aquanostra9 recently simplified the section on the Doctor, which was a Good Thing.  However, in so doing, we lost the explanation of what "TARDIS" stands for, which I think it a pretty basic bit of info that belongs in the main Doctor Who article.  However, Aquanostra seems to think that it's redundant to have it both here and at TARDIS.  What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained in my edit summary, when we think of the TARDIS, three most prominent things come to mind - what the letters stand for, that it's bigger on the inside and the outside, and it looks like a police box. To not say that in the main article — especially the police box bit — seems rather odd. Merely mentioning it isn't excessive detail. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TARDIS acronym

message: Well, I put that the 1st Dr was "ORIGINALLY a dark, irascible character" instead of "an irascible and slightly sinsister character", for I do indeed think that the 1st Doctor was INITIALLY a very dark character.
Besides, what's the difference between "dark" and "slightly sinister"( with sinister meaning ominous, threatening, and malevolent)?
I say stick with "dark", for it's more concise and reads better.
aquanostra972.244.70.35 07:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sinister is a shade less malevolent than dark, which implies more evil. The only "dark" action that the Doctor undertakes in his first incarnation is the apparent attempted killing of the caveman in 100,000 BC (a scene which is also equivocal). In The Daleks, he's simply deceptive, not intending to get anyone harmed; in Inside the Spaceship, everyone's acting crazy; by Marco Polo, he's become the grandfatherly figure everyone knows. So dark is not the adjective I would use. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't really work, either, since he only lies outright to his companions in The Daleks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. And please stop reverting to your edits until we resolve this one way or another; if you want other opinions, wait for them. To say a person is deceptive is to say it is a general characteristic, not one that is merely borne out of one specific instance. Similarly for dark, which as I pointed out is of a particularly more malevolent shade of meaning than sinister. I also disagree that it flows better. I would also like you to show me where else he was lying outright to his companions aside from dragging them into the Dalek city in The Daleks. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please write your text, preview it to make certain that is what you want, then save it rather than adding and adding to it constantly. Your constant edits are making it extremely difficult for people to reply because they keep running into edit conflicts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I replaced "irascible" for "irritable" (it's a better word, and is often used to describe Hartnell, and it's not that unknown a word; I give Americans more credit) and the qualifier "slightly" to "sinister" to alleviate the negative connotations you mentioned above, and I think we're good to go. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with "an irascible, slightly sinister character".  I don't think we need both qualifiers.  (Sorry if I cut out on the debate unexpectedly last night — I'm in the Eastern US, and do need sleep occasionally! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark, or slightly sinister? 

message: In the section about missing episodes, and now official BBC reconstructions, should the 30 minute reconstruction of Marco Polo (included on The Beginning) be included? Particularly since Mark Ayres has expressed that he might like to do other such reconstructions to be included with future DVD releases? (see ). --JohnDBuell 16:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be in Doctor Who missing episodes, and I've written a paragraph to that effect. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstructions 

message: If you're going to just count the length of time between the first episode and current episodes, without taking into consideration that the show had a long hiatus, then the longest running sci-fi show is probably Twilight Zone.  First episode 1959, last episode 2003.  Doctor Who doesn't catch up until 2007.
If hiatuses do matter and you count number of seasons instead, then Doraemon beats it with 29 seasons.  It probably also beats Dr. Who in number of episodes, but I can't prove it offhand.  Dark Shadows definitely beats Dr. Who in number of episodes, but it depends on whether you count fantasy as sci-fi.  
If you add enough qualifiers (English language, live action, non-anthology) you can get Dr. Who to be number one.
Ken Arromdee 04:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Longest running show" 

message: Why is the category getting in the way of text on the talk page? —This unsigned comment was added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) , who really should know better ;) .
:Hm... I'm not seeing that.  Is it still doing that on your end?  Have you tried with another browser? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category problem