Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 6

message: Why is this notable? Are we going to put in the Korean names as well? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know nothing about Korean names; however, considering such a song-and-dance was made during the Notes for Rose about the series being translated into French (whilst that information could have been put anywhere), I thought it would indeed be interesting to note how the names translate into other languages, French in this case (The Empty Child becoming "Joke of Death", for example). If you are suggesting putting all of the non-English names into the notes anyway, that is a different matter for discussion. :) NP Chilla 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting for Rose, perhaps, but not for every single one. Why is French any more special than anything else? And the fact it has been translated should indeed be in the Doctor Who general article, rather than in Rose — since the classic series was also dubbed in multiple languages. Any others have thoughts on this? --22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually an extremely interesting point you've raised - does anyone actually know the Korean names? Or German? I imagine it would be perfectly acceptable to have the non-English names in the notes of episodes, providing they where interesting enough to be noteworthy (the afore-mentioned "Joke of Death" being a prime example). NP Chilla 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Khaosworks. I don't see any point in mentioning foreign versions of a name, unless it's particularly amusing or noteworthy. I certainly wouldn't do it as a matter of course in every episode. The place for a proper list of French episode names is French Wikipedia, not here. And yes, Rose's translation note should be in the main Doctor Who article under series 1. --KJBracey 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds a fair compromise - interesting/amusing foreign names are included, and literal translations are ignored. Works for me! NP Chilla 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French names

message: You may remember that, back in the sands of time, we had a bit of a discussion about whether to write out story names like "this", or like this; and the latter won out? Well, it looks like our pals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy are following our example and have started to write out their titles in the same fashion. How incredibly flattering! <blushes>
I think that this is a sign that, if nothing else, we really are doing something right. NP Chilla 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Sincerest Form of Flattery"

message: Look, we're all fans here, but this is really crossing into fancruft territory. We already make references to where stuff comes from in the notes of the articles; do we really need some kind of central repository? Who honestly cares that much? And will they even think to look? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated it for AfD. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I second that. Looks like the person who created the article has even voted for its deletion so I don't think it'll be a problem. 23skidoo 12:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Original Content appearing in Doctor Who (2005-)]]

message: You know how we've put Totally Doctor Who up on the Big Doctor Who Box of Death? Well, why not put Torchwood up there as well? I mean, it is meatier than Totally, and it is certainly interesting. And let's not forget - the more exposure, the better! NP Chilla 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the box should have another light-blue section, titled "Related programmes" or some such?  That could include Doctor Who Confidential, Totally Doctor Who and Torchwood.  But would it also have to have K-9 and Company? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... yes, that is a good idea! And I think that we would have to include K-9 and Company somewhere, for completion's sake. NP Chilla 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the box could use some reorganization anyway. Why is "theme music" on the first line, ahead of serials and missing episodes? Seems a little odd.--Aderack 11:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put another draft up at Template talk:Doctor-who. —Whouk (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant. It looks absolutely smashing, and I'm very impressed that someone had the bright idea of putting Cyberman on as well. NP Chilla 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of recent additions to bbc.co.uk's Doctor Who fold (ie. TARDISODES and the new official tie-in websites),  is it worth adding these to the box as well? NP Chilla 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tld|doctor-who}} boxes to include [[Torchwood]]

message: Just in case you hadn't noticed: TARDIS is now Today's featured article on the Main Page.  Congratulations to all Project members who have worked on the article and brought it to its current, excellent condition.  Of course, being on the front page does mean that the article will probably attract more than its usual share of vandals today.  The recent changes patrollers are usually good about taking care of this, but we should keep an eye on it as well.  (Some vandals may also target pages linked from TARDIS, which we might be more likely to catch.)
While I'm thinking about it, I think the WikiProject as a whole deserves this:
:—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations and heads up 

message: A notice to all: I've changed some instances of :Image:Drwhostub-02.JPG to :Image:Earls_Court_Police_Box.jpg because I think it's more illustrative of the TARDIS in my opinion. Thank Mindspillage for the idea. .--Sean Black (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, upon reflection, I suppose I should have left a note here first :). But whatever, I'm cool with it.--Sean Black (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out on Sean's talk page, the Earl's Court police box has that ugly CCTV attachment on the top and so doesn't really resemble a TARDIS at all. The other picture is closer. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image stuff 

message: Should we add sample articles for the books and audios to the sample section on the main project page? Angmering 15:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By your command. Wait, no, wrong programme... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mwahahahha. Feel my power. Actually, I was surprised after following the category link there that we only have three New Adventures articles. I'd somehow imagined we had more than that, but I suppose only a certain percentage of them have enough of note to deserve individual articles. Angmering 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample articles

message: Is it OK to borrow the cover images from the Big Finish website, or do we need to scan our own copies?  (If it's the latter, someone else will have to do it for Pier Pressure and Night Thoughts, 'cause I don't have a scanner.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll scan them. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not Doctor Who, but I figure someone here can probably get hold of a scan of the cover of The Adventures of Luther Arkwright too... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Finish images 

message: Do any of the articles discuss the various logos the series has had over the years? I think there might be some worthwhile discussion with such a page, with the 1996 movie borrowing Pertwee's logo, the controversy over the new "lozenge" logo, and now the Sci-Fi Channel is using a brand new logo for its promotions which looks like a cross between Pertwee's logo and the logo from the Man From UNCLE. 23skidoo 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether anyone has enough reference material to say anything meaningful about it without just a contextless recitation of "it changed to this, and then to this, and then to this...", I suppose --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps in a discussion of the title sequences, perhaps i.e. how the sequences were created, etc.? It is interesting that Sci-Fi Channel is not only claiming Doctor Who as one of its own original series, but have created their own logo for the show in lieu of the one actually used. I'm not in the US so I won't be seeing the broadcast on Friday but it'll be interesting to see if anything is changed on the show when it airs. 23skidoo 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Sci-Fi channel appears to be using the 2005 "lozenge" logo on their site as of right now.  --Goobergunch|? 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't mean they'd replaced it altogether, but if you see the Sci-Fi Channel trailers for the show (they're making the rounds on the Internet) they're not using that logo at all. Instead it's a logo that actually more closely resembles the Troughton-era logo than Pertwee's (my mistake there). And there's a silhouette of the Doctor standing within the O which makes it look like the Man from UNCLE. I actually like it a lot more than the lozenge logo. 23skidoo 14:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logos

message: If an article were to be written about the BBV Auton Trilogy, should it be restricted to one blanket article or should there be an article for each video? Justin Foote 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a blanket article, unless there's substantial material to warrant 3. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it make sense to start out with a section at Auton first, and then spin it off to its own article if there's enough material?  Right now there's only the one sentence and the standard canon disclaimer. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sure there is enough material for an article of its own. I think the wisest approach would be to start with a blanket article, then spin it off to three separate articles if there is enough. Justin Foote 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally I'd rather see the main Auton article cover all appearances of the Autons, including Spearhead, Terror of, and Rose in addition to the BBV productions. If a separate article on the BBVs is created, I recommend it include a statement explaining that these aren't fan films. There's a difference between the BBV productions, which are independent films featuring officially licenced characters, and the Star Trek fan films that, despite ever-growing involvement from actual Trek cast and crew, are still considered fan films. I think I'm making sense (it's been a long day ;-) ) 23skidoo 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Auton trilogy article has been started. Justin Foote 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Auton Trilogy 

message: I suppose this is still too future-ish to make it into any of our articles, but thought y'all might be interested in this BBC news story which uses Doctor Who as the example of BBC programming which may be available for download soon.  It sounds like it'll be restricted with lots of DRM, and possibly only available in the UK (at least at the beginning — in the video linked from the article, the BBC's new media guy hints that overseas customers may be able to pay for downloads at some stage).  But I guess we're getting closer to being able to download Doctor Who onto our computers (legally). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite pleasing how every time there's a news story about new TV technology or about BBC programmes in general, they use an image from Doctor Who. —Whouk (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Doctor Who'' for download 

message: The new series has just been nominated for 3 Hugo Awards . The only other TV episode that has been nominated is an instalment of Battlestar Galactica. Also nominated in the controversial Short Form category - which two years ago honored an acceptance speech over episodes of Enterprise and Firefly - is a Pixar animated short, another short film, and the previous year's Hugo Awards ceremony broadcast. I'm not sure the best place to put this so I'll let others decide. 23skidoo 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should put the nominations under the "Awards" section of the main article, and if one of the episodes wins (which will be, of course, The Doctor Dances), then that should also be put in the same place. After all, from what I've gathered, Hugo awards are BIG business. NP Chilla 18:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lost all respect for them when they gave Gollum's acceptance speech at the MTV Movie Awards the Best Short Form Hugo instead of nominated episodes from Galactica, Firefly and Enterprise (I've heard it might have been some sort of protest vote against the state of SF on TV ... but I thought there was a law that everyone was supposed to rave about Firefly and Galactica?). That said, the Hugos are still considered the Oscars of the SF industry; the next awards to look for are the Saturn Awards, which are also gaining prominence. 23skidoo 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gollum's speech was actually competing against Buffy, Firefly (x2) and Smallville.  No Galactica or Enterprise was involved (except inasmuch as they failed to be nominated).  http://www.noreascon.org/hugos/nominees.html . The Hugos and the Nebulas are the two biggest awards, I'd say--Hugos are voted by the fans, Nebulas by the writers.  The Saturns (film / television awards) are indeed gaining prominence, but aren't quite as old as the other two.
Anyway.  This Hugo ballot will be bizarre.  Usually they're limited to 5 nominees but I guess there was a 3-way tie for fifth place so there are 7.  
http://www.laconiv.org/2006/hugos/nominees.htm Claudia 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected - but still, my point stands that Buffy, Firefly, and Smallville were critics' darlings with strong fanbases, and for the award to go to Gollum was seen as quite the insult. And it has had the backlash that a lot of people are now going "who cares?" with regards to the Doctor Who nominations. The Hugos shouldn't have even nominated Gollum, just as they shouldn't have nominated the awards show this year. Odds are Gollum won because of a vote-split involving Firefly, just as the three Doctor Whos and BSG could cancel each other out and allow the awards show to win this year (or the Jack-Jack Attack animated short). The Hugos had no business nominating TV dramas in the same category as joke productions. If either of those win and Doctor Who or BSG lose, expect to see a major revamping of the categories next year.23skidoo 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who Hugo nominations

message: Does this artical really need to exist? Most of what's already in there is either in City of Death or under Scaroth anyway. Would a merger/deletion be appropriate? NP Chilla 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jagaroth]]

message: It'll take me a couple days to finish this, but I've started adding notes regarding the novelizations to the individual serial articles. I think it's a legitimate addition to the trivia. 23skidoo 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed, but please spell it novelisations. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah, I know! ;) (although I wonder if it should be novelization for the Fox film?). Anyway, it's all done now, and along the way I also created an article for Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans. 23skidoo 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice job, but the lead needs more work, or else it risks being deleted as simply being a list. Oh, and the apostrophe's a bit awkward - should it be List of Doctor Who novelisations by Target Books (like List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish)? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also considering moving to a more straight-forward List of Doctor Who novelisations so that it could also include the Power and Evil of the Daleks and the Paradise of Death which came after the Virgin take-over. Tim (meep) 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I decided to go with this. I don't know much about the pre-Target novelisations and it would be nice if anyone could add some info about them :-) Tim (meep) 17:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Doctor Who Reference Guide page has detailed publishing info for the pre-Targets (Daleks, Crusaders, Zarbi)  . Although Power and Evil of the Daleks and Paradise of Death were published after the Virgin take over they still carried the Target branding on their title pages; Ghosts of N-Space was published under Virgin's banner... 23skidoo 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Pop fact: On Target, the novelisations website linked at the bottom of the list, is by far the most visited of all the site on the Leeds uni personal web server. There, isn't that interesting :-) —Whouk (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelizations

message: The new series has received two Viewer's Choice nominations in the Canadian Space Channel's "Spacey" awards. Visitors to this site can vote for Doctor Who in the category of Favourite Series and for Rose Tyler in the category of Favourite New TV Character. 23skidoo 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More nominations

message: I added dates to the Series 2 episode pages, based on the April 15 date for New Earth.  However, I haven't changed the text about "Spring 2006" in the opening paragraphs, in part because I wasn't sure whether to say that the later dates were confirmed by DWM (are they?) and in part because after I finished adding the dates, I remembered RTD's comment about how the episode order may change.  Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the first series was airing, I was very careful to create the episode articles only when the Radio Times listings came out, so it was a slow progression that ensured that the dates/times were absolutely accurate. Obviously this year the situation is different since people wanted to create the articles ahead of time. I would still hesitate to put definitive dates until the listings come out because I'm cautious that way, but I leave it to others to decide what is the preferred solution. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps adding "(tbc)" after those for which dates aren't yet certain? —Whouk (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast dates 

message: I just picked up the "The Beginning" DVD which contained the first DVD releases of Unearthly Child/Daleks/Edge of Destruction. I was quite surprised to discover that the DVD releases of these serials use the original videotape elements. The previous VHS releases of these shows, plus the versions aired on PBS and YTV Canada, had been transferred to film (I assume kinescope or a similar format). I'm not quite sure where to note this, but it's worth mentioning somewhere. The old serials actually look rather striking in clear video as opposed to the slightly fuzzy film of years past. 23skidoo 03:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are the film recordings — the videotapes were destroyed in the 1960s, and not a single one exists until episode one of The Ambassadors of Death — but during the restoration they have been treated with the VidFIRE process, which re-creates the missing fields telerecording onto film removes from the picture, restoring the fluid "video look". Every black and white DVD release with the exception of The Tomb of the Cybermen has also been treated with the same process (bar one episode on Lost in Time, which was too damaged to be worth doing it as it wouldn't look effective). Angmering 06:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case I wish they'd stuck with the original film. It's sorta like colorization in this regard - a computer alteration of an original. I'm afraid my opinion of the DVD set just plummeted. 23skidoo 14:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if I have this correctly, the original wasn't in film - it was kept on videotape, so in effect VidFIRE is restoring it to close to what it looked like when broadcast on UK television. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the whole point is that it restores the picture to far closer to what it would have looked like on original UK transmission. It's not a computer alteration of an original — it's a computer alteration of a sub-standard copy to get it looking something close to the original. Which has to be a good thing, surely? Angmering 17:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video vs. film 

message: I think Doctor Who incidental music is not very well represented at the moment. I have been compiling a list of composers and set this out below. As far as I can see, this is a complete list of all Doctor Who composers (apart from where existing works were used (examples: Stock music used in the 1960s; Pink Floyd track used in Spearhead From Space; Keff McCulloch's cover versions)).
Ron Grainer
Delia Derbyshire
Norman Kay
Tristram Cary
Dudley Simpson
Stanley Myers
Carey Blyton
Richard Rodney Bennett
Francis Chagrin 
Raymond Jones
Humphrey Searle
BBC Radiophonic Workshop
Don Harper
Malcolm Clarke
Geoffrey Burgon
Peter Howell
Paddy Kingsland
Roger Limb
Jonathan Gibbs
Elizabeth Parker
Dominic Glynn
Richard Hartley
Keff McCulloch
Mark Ayres
John Debney
Murray Gold
Not sure if Malcolm Lockyer qualifies.
You will see a lot of red links. I have added "Doctor Who composer" category to about six of these in the last few days.
I do not think a template is appropriate, because most of these are famous for other work too. But it is surprising that there is no Dudley Simpson article yet, so perhaps others could consider writing up some of the missing names. I will have a go (time permitting) too. DavidFarmbrough 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fleetwood Mac on Spearhead, surely? Angmering 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought they used that too but it doesn't matter, that was an example of the type of musical composer I wasn't talking about! DavidFarmbrough 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice idea. This one occurred to me too a while back, but just never seemed to have the time. Remember Dudley Simpson also appeared on screen in Talons, so he should get DW actor status too. It is amazing no one has written his article yet... Litefoot 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadly Dudley has now been written! And so has Mark Ayres. DavidFarmbrough 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to user:Beware The Daleks for doing Malcolm Lockyer and Carey Blyton - and I see also Bill McGuffie, who did the music for the second Dalek film and who I had completely forgotten! DavidFarmbrough 12:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Apologies for being slightly off topic, but could I draw the attention of one of the WikiProject's admins to the short thread at Template talk:Imdb title#Linked text? As the template is protected it needs an admin to make the change. (I'm not sure whether it needs discussion anywhere else first - the template's talk page was the obvious place.) Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help 

message: is creating articles for the PDAs at the moment, so we're probably going to need to start sorting them into :Category:First Doctor novels, etc. at some point. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  We may also want to look at either using or adapting :Template:Infobox Book for our novel pages, like we did with :Template:Bigfinishbox for the audios. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's , which I've tried out on Lungbarrow. My only issue with it is the redundancy of "Set Between" and "Preceding" and "Following". That's needed for the PDAs, but for sequential series like the NAs and the EDAs it seems a little redundant. Does any body know how to fix a template so that non-filled in fields simply disappear? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added class="hiddenStructure" - has that done the trick? —Whouk (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks that way! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I created the categories, but there are currently no First Doctor novels with articles so that category is empty for now. Tim (meep) 17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created The Empire of Glass so it's not empty now. Tim (meep) 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Past Doctor Adventures sorting

message: Is it worth giving these little snippets an article of their own? NP Chilla 12:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should have one each, but maybe there should be a summary at TARDISODES or Tardisodes (or maybe even TARDISodes). --Thelb4 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I created a test of TARDISODES here, to be expanded later. Edits to it are welcome! --Thelb4 11:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's no objection, I will move the page to a main namespace page in 24 hours time. --Thelb4 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not objecting to the existence of the article as such, although I'm wondering how substantial an article it can be. I'm not sure where it might conceivably be merged, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could give a synopsis of each TARDISODE on the page, like with the actual episodes (eg The Unquiet Dead), and I think there is more information available. --Thelb4 14:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There could be a page for supplementary material to the new series that would also include the Graske whatsis, the tie-in websites, and whatnot. --71.139.19.107 20:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already pages for those, at Attack of the Graske and Doctor Who tie-in websites. --Thelb4 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Page created! I'm still not sure whether it should be at TARDISODE or Tardisode, though. --Thelb4 14:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TARDISODES 

message: Hello, I've just signed up to Wikipedia today, although I've used it for research for some months now.  Apologies if I'm in the wrong place or making mistakes - I have nosed around guidelines and sandboxes but there is a lot to try to take in.
Anyway, I was looking at Wikipedia's entries for prime numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis and noted that Lloyd Rose's book The Algebra of Ice is actually an action=edit non-stub  - now, I don't know that Wikimathematicians would necessarily be interested in a link, but I suspect that it would be quite useful for Wikiwhoies (is that what we're called?).  I remember a precedent in that Reckless Engineering is listed in Further Reading at the Isambard Kingdom Brunel entry.
I notice that the BBC Books ranges have many red entries, and I should be happy to contribute in this field.  Would such contributions be welcome, and if so, to whom should I talk?
I live in Johannesburg, RSA, but grew up in the UK on a diet of Target novelisations and Tom Baker.  The 2005 series has not yet been shown in South Africa, but I acquired the DVD box set last Christmas.  I am male, 34.
:If you're in doubt just be bold! Any contribution (as long as it is not vandalism) is fine, as long as you follow the guidelines. By the way, us on Wikipedia are called Wikipedians. --Thelb4 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie says hi: Algebra of Ice? 

message: It seems that more and more new articles for the novels are being created; of course, there's nothing wrong with that, such a stroke should be applauded, but they all seem terribly thin, without even a plot synopsis or continuity notes section between them. Anyone have any ideas on how we can organise them/fatten them up? NP Chilla 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fattened up Just War (Doctor Who), Oh No It Isn't! and Walking to Babylon by putting the books in context (e.g. in terms of the author's other work), discussing themes and influences, and detailing (with links) any significant recurring characters/aliens/ideas. Bondegezou 11:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Past Doctor Adventures]]/[[Eighth Doctor Adventures]]

message: I started this new article to cover the various sketches and spoofs of Doctor Who and would appreciate any additions to it. Tim (meep) 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work, Tim.--Sean Black (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It made front page as a Did you know? Thanks for all the contributions :-) Tim (meep) 21:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Doctor Who spoofs]] 

message: Would it be worth having an errors page so that those of us who merely browse wikipedia could flag stuff for the team to check, rather than fiddle about and possibly undo changes which were made for a reason? So, for example, rather than me trying to edit out "the first companion from an ethnic minority" in the Anji Kapoor entry and put it in the Roz Forrester entry, I'd flag it up for you guys to change (or clarify the reasoning e.g. in the C30th Roz wasn't from a minority). This would reduce duplication of effort, perhaps? --Magslhalliday
:Hi Mags. Welcome to Wikipedia. Every article has a Talk page for discussing this sort of thing, so an easy way to flag things up is to post a comment to the article's Talk page - you can create a new thread by clicking the "+" icon at the top of the Talk page. If, as above, the issues affects more than one article, then this page is a good place to raise it. —Whouk (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors? 

message: I added comments today to the Doctor Who "spin-off" page, only to discover that prior to my comments khaosworks had apparently attempted to move the conversation here.  The conversation, which seems to have come from TimPope's query on how to condense the article, was quite old, though, so perhaps we've moved on.  Still, it's really nagging at me, so, if you don't mind, I'll reduce my arguments on the article's Talk page here.  I don't understand how we're using the term "spin-off" throughout the wikiproject.  It seems inconsistent with the way that spin-off is defined outside the project.  How on God's green Earth, for example, is a novelisation a "spin-off"?  It's simply a novelisation, or maybe, if you really felt the need to give it another name, a tie-in.  
It seems to me that the way forward in terms of condensing that article is to keep only those things that are genuine spin-offs in that article--Miranda, Faction Paradise, Torchwood, K9 & Company, Sarah Jane Smith, etc.  Then, create another article, called "Doctor Who in other media", which would be the "umbrella article" for the various kinds of Doctor Who novels, comics, and audios which actually star the Doctor.  Then, the recently-started "Doctor Who Merchandise" would be a third article, but not directly linked to the first two articles.
As things stand now, I really think the first line of the article Doctor Who spin-offs is an outright inaccuracy, which is why later in the introduction the author(s) have had to take pains to say that they're not like other science fiction spin-offs.  The dissimilarity isn't because Doctor Who is a "special" phenomenon.  They aren't like other spin-offs because they're not spin-offs.  CzechOut 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be right — how about "Doctor Who spin-offs and tie-ins"? Tim (meep) 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do mean that we would include the Doctor Who tie-in websites? NP Chilla 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's a good suggestion. I've been having a related discussion at Talk:Eighth_Doctor. Bondegezou 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin-off? 

message: His relationship to Doctor Who is a bit tangential, so I thought folks here might not notice that I'd created a stub for Nev Fountain.  I did a smattering of research, but I'll wager that there are members of the WikiProject who can add a fair bit more info.  (For example, I don't even know whether his full name is Neville, as one might expect — I found only one reference to him as "Neville Fountain", and it's in an article that also mentions "Christopher Ecclestone", so I don't have much confidence in its fact-checking.)
Anyway, the page is there if anyone wants to do anything to it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. Interestingly, the Guardian article you linked is by Andy Bodle, who used to be an editor on the Virgin Who books. —Whouk (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is — I suppose he would know about the "Doctor Who mafia"! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nev Fountain 

message: Having a bit of a discussion on Talk:Lady Serena if anyone hasn't noticed yet. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Companions

message: For anyone interested, I've created an article based on the (rather good) BBV production The Airzone Solution, which I just watched for the first time. There are still a few things missing from the article such as images and an infobox, but it's a start. 23skidoo 01:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airzone Solution

message: created this recently and asked for help in expanding it. I've done an initial cleanup but it needs more looking at and expansion. Just a heads-up. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Outpost Gallifrey]] 

message: Please also look in on Talk:List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, as the page is growing unweildy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens

message: See Talk:Spearhead from Space. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another discussion for those who might have missed it

message: I just came upon this.  I'd be inclined to merge it into one of the lists, but it doesn't quite fit any of them.  Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge to The One Doctor. Phil Sandifer 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, there's the The Shelves of Infinity as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mentos (Doctor Who)]] 

message: List of Doctor who Airdates — redirect to List of Doctor Who serials? 
Doctor Who: Podshock — are podcasts notable? Is this podcast notable? 
Tim! 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have some podcasts link on the main article. I very much doubt than any of them deserves their own article. —Whouk (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Doctor Who Airdates is being created by some editors who are doing this all over; I don't think Wikipedia should be a listings magazine. Podshock, while pretty good (I listen to it and it's why I added it to the links to begin with) I don't think it's notable enough yet. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New articles to mull over