Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 13

message: List of Doctor Who henchmen — what do we think?  A list too far?  Is there a need for these minor characters to have a list of their own?  Even if the page has merit, does it deserve a place in :Template:Doctor Who?  All opinions welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctor Who began in November, 1963 (famously, the evening after the assassination of President Kennedy).  There was a long hiatus between the last Sylvester McCoy episode and the recent revival, but even so there's about twenty five years worth of Doctor Who stories.  That's a hell of a lot of henching!  On the other hand this article is a good way of cataloguing all the minor (and some not so minor) British character actors of the past forty-odd years. --Tony Sidaway 09:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, these people may not be of great importance, but its important having pages like this to keep all the other pages tidy, otherwise the people in the list would be popping up as parts of not so related articals.--Wiggstar69 09:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a little random to me - why henchmen? Why not a list of supporting good guys? Or child actors? Or significant animal appearances? With a show that's been around as long as Doctor Who, you could make a list of just about anything and populate it pretty thoroughly. Any of the henchmen who are significant should be mentioned on the villains page, and the rest don't need to be listed outside of their episode article. --Brian Olsen 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the other Doctor Who related lists and catagoreis have recently been deleted, like the ones you said. I think child actors was one, but got deleted. Maybe this will go the same way, eventually? Smomo 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an emphasis should shift from creating articles to improving currently existing ones. Just an observation that's all. LuciferMorgan 06:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Henchmen are too minor.  Percy Snoodle 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should never be a reference or source ;) ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Doctor Who henchmen 

message: I have a couple of questions regarding The Five Doctors page for the project.
First, an anonymous editor keeps inserting the fact that the first VHS release had two minutes edited out from its original airing on the BBC. I have tried to find what these were on the net (Outpost Gallifrey is usually on top of thiis kind of thing) and have come up empty. The website that they provided as backup is simply a listing from eBay. Let me take a step back and point out that as a Yank the broadcast that we got to see on November 23rd, 1983 was missing two scenes (the scenes of the Master seeing the burnt husk of one of the Time Lord's that had proceeded him into the zone was one but the mists of time have blocked my remembering what the other one was). The 1985 VHS release restored these scenes. I don't remember whether the second VHS release ever occurred over here, but, I never saw it. I have some concern over using a listing on eBay as a source as the person selling the product may have inserted the phrase "edit two minutes" in error or through a misunderstanding of the various releases. Of course, my knowledge of the releases is also incomplete and this info may be correct. Thus, my question is this - do any members of the DW project have knowledge of, or access to, more complete info then is currently on the page? If so should we add what the 2 missing minutes are to the note about the VHS release?
My second question is about the infobox for the same story. It currently includes all of the normal info for the show plus the writers and directors of the clips used from The Dalek Invasion of Earth and Shada. Now to my eye this makes it look cluttered. I am not saying that this info shouldn't be included - I just think that it should go in the "Production notes" section. I would just make two points. First, all of the other stories info boxes contain info as credited on screen. Second, you have to be careful with this kind of thing as it could be argued that we should also include all of the writers and directors of the flashback segments of Logopolis, Earthshock and Mawdryn Undead. I am definitely not advocating for that, but someone far more obsessive/compulsive than I am might.  Now, I know that this is just an aesthetic thing to my eye and if the majority of you are happy with it I will be okay with it too, I am just mentioning it as food for thought. Happy editing to you all and, of course, I am very jealous of you UK Doctor Who fans because it is going to be months before I get to enjoy the new episodes that you are viewing right now! MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two questions about The Five Doctors page

message: I've noticed that there are quite repetitive statements of the type "the canonicity of the Doctor Who novels is not clear".  Rather than have this interspersed throughout the "references to other Doctor Who stories" and "continuity" sections, I've been thinking that it would be better just to have a bit of boilerplate that can be placed at the head of each such section, leaving the text to flow more freely.  I guess the wording should be something like:
: Events and other elements referenced in Doctor Who novels, audio stories, films and other non-television sources may not be consistent with the television stories, which are normally assumed to be definitive.
I also suggest that we avoid the use of jargon words like "canon".  --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency and canonical are different things. See Canon (fiction). Matthew 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I attempt to express that in English rather than jargon by saying that the television stories are normally assumed to be definitive, and the other sources may not be consistent with those stories.  I think that just about captures the sense of it, at least for the purpose of explaining why some references that follow may not accord with the stories told in the television series.  A good example of this would be the different stories of the origins of the daleks (and the various attempts to marry them together into a consistent whole). --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon notices

message: It's just been pointed out to me that this project's "style guide" says:
Screenshots [...] should be 300px for the classic series and 350px for the wider screen new series.
This is bad practice, for the reasons outlined on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images and discussed recently in  and . The images in these articles do not meet the criteria for exception outlined in the former. Can anyone give me a good reason why the images need to be at a fixed size, overriding individual user's preferences? Andy Mabbett 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do indeed meet the MoS as per the link you provided. Matthew 13:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Andy Mabbett 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I told you (which I'll reiterate here to give you a "refresher"): "I've rolledback your edit, the Doctor Who WikiProject has a "style guide" with a consensus in agreement, furthermore the MoS states: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article" -- emphasis on /recommended/, not /disallowed/." Matthew 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I read what you wrote before I replied to it. Now, can you please tell mehow you think this usage meets the MoS' exception criteria, without resorting to sarcasm? Andy Mabbett 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I stated: "in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article" -- I had even bolded it for you, twice! Just because you prefer images at 180px does not make them a violation of the MoS. I find the image sizes the DW-SG states to use are reasonable for all resolutions. I'd also like to point out that while high-res images violate our fair use criteria so can low-res, if they're so small as to provide no critical commentary then they should not be within an article.. I find the image sizes to strengthen our fair use claim, they're not high-res.. nor are they low. Matthew 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're simply repeating yourself, without providing any justification for your claim, which appears to be based on personal preference for your own system, rather than any consideration for other users. I made no comment about my personal preference, nor about "fair use" criteria. I note that the section from which you have quoted begins "Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to", and ends "Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.". You have provided no such compelling reason. I intend to seek further opinions on this matter. Andy Mabbett 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You go do that! Matthew 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Giving third opinion.  Hmm, I do think that having a reasonable policy for displayed image sizes is acceptable.  It offers a greater consistency across a project.  I've also been looking at various featured articles like Triumph of the Will, every one of them sizes the image as well.  Perhaps I'm missing something in the discussion though?  FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: But giving that this is the practice on a lot of pages, and could be a problem, I'm not sure this is an issue that's specific enough to this project for a discussion here.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree that sizing pictures at 300 and 350 pixels can occupy a much too large proportion of the viewing area.  We should avoid overriding user preferences unless we have a very, very good reason (we don't).  --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I tried looking at the page with the default user preference I use...it didn't look anywhere as good.  Besides, as I noted, this problem isn't one just for this wikiproject, but across a spectrum of pages.  Therefore, I suggest developing consensus in a wider forum.   This is clearly something for the Village Pump. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "it didn't look anywhere as good" ...on your set-up. Andy Mabbett 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, duh, I thought that was obvious.  Nonethless, the problem was that simply removing the pixel specification doesn't mean nobody is bothered, it means now I've got a picture that looks less good unless I somehow go edit my configureation.  This I think is a problem for many users, especially casual ones.  Of course, as a problem, it's been one that's hindered the internet for a while, so it's not exactly new either.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  "clearly something for the Village Pump" - Raised on VP:Policy. Andy Mabbett 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sizing of images 

message: I'm currently working on citing up Doctor Who missing episodes to try and help keep it at Featured Article status. I've used web versions of a few pieces to source some information, although I've pointed the cites at the original print versions because they look better and more reliable as sources. I need page numbers for the cites to be fully acceptable at FAR, though, so I was wondering — is there any chance one of you fine gents could look up the page numbers for me of Richard Molesworth's "Out of the Vaults" articles on the sixties and the seventies from DWM 256 and 257, and Andrew Pixley and Jan Vincent-Rudzki's chapter "Junking" from the Second Doctor Handbook (or the complete Handbook reprint from Telos, if the same chapter is still present in that)? I'd be much obliged! Cheers. Angmering 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers

message: Someone (I don't know who yet) has put a great deal of effort into plot sections for various Who stories, that makes the article an awful length, can these be tagged to have them trimmed somewhat? The City of Death plot is an example Alastairward 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Awful length" is a matter of opinion, I don't mind long plots - this is an encyclopaedia after all, and there's also nothing wrong with plots in articles, not to mention that plot is for four episodes of the story. Matthew 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to  because I'm new here. Having said that, there seems to be a guideline/policy about it which I'm trying to find. There's a plot length discussion here and here, which might help. Totnesmartin 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a guideline, yes, there's no actual definition of too long though. Matthew 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some previous discussion on this that just rolled over into the archives - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_12#Lengthy_plot_summaries (ugly link, but it should work).  From reading that, it's evidently a topic that comes up pretty often.  (I'm also too new to make any recommendations, just wanted to mention more stuff to read.) Gwydionmom 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just go and ask at the Village Pump. Somebody must know! Totnesmartin 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And yeah, City of Death seems excessive. Avoid the "play-by-play" level of detail. -- Ned Scott 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also say, even if not on Shakespeare's level, Doctor Who is still somewhat of a modern classic, so I would expect to read more about Doctor Who than say.. Friends (it's been a while since I've really watched TV..). -- Ned Scott 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, classic Science fiction, but not usually classic drama. Totnesmartin
I found some answers at the Village Pump, but nowt definite: User talk:Totnesmartin#Plot Length. Totnesmartin 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To put things into perspective, I looked at a two parter from Star Trek, The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode) which comes out at the same broadcast length (roughly) as two Who stories, Revelation of the Daleks and City of Death. The Daleks plot was told in roughly the same number of words as the Star Trek episode, 1196 and 1131 words respectively. In comparison, City of Death was retold in a whopping 4738! This is ridiculous, its too long to read through without getting bogged down. It simply doesn't deserve an article of that length never mind a plot description that long. If anyone can point out the importance and/or notability of this episode in comparison to others or other articles, please do, otherwise it must be trimmed! Alastairward 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say the plots arn't being written to long at all, I don't really mind them being of that length as long as we don't get too boged down on the minor details.--Wiggstar69 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But 4738 words long, its a couple of screens in length, I might try trimming them when I've caught up on a few episodes Alastairward 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything over 1000 is definetly long !!! And even that is about the longest of all other media that publicize plot summaries. 400 for a "standard episode" is my personal guideline. 50 for really simple ones (children tv series). 800-1000 for complicated episodes. And I cannot reiterate this enough. (as Ned did as well it seems). scene-by-scene descriptions are BAD. potentially not fair-use of the episode's story, and often it has trouble identifying the important from the unimportant parts of the plotlines. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot lengths 

message: ... that copying and pasting summaries from the BBC (or any other website non-GFDL/PD) is not allowed. Matthew 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will (I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!) 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Auton stories}} 

message: I've noticed that several Big finish releases don't have images of their covers ( Nocturne, I.D. & Urgent Calls etc>) Could someone add them?(Black Dalek 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask you you shall receive!  Both covers have been added.  Thanks for the heads up. The Core-Man 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Finish images

message: I have made a suggestion for an alternative Doctor Who Portal on one of my user sub-pages: User:Akut/Doctor Who Portal. Please give your feedback. Thank you.--Wolf talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the existing one.  Sorry.  Percy Snoodle 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else have any other opinions?--Wolf talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctor Who Portal

message: Good news everyone — the featured article review for Doctor Who missing episodes has closed, and the article has retained its status. Angmering 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations - that leaves the flagship article and the Tardis to cite up for the Project. LuciferMorgan 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doctor Who has such interest and so many editors that it's going to be an absolute bloody nightmare, that one. It's also so big and rather unwieldy an article — I've said before that it might need rebuilding and rewriting from the ground up and I still think that might not be a bad idea. TARDIS will probably be the easier job, but it's not really my field — it's a shame khaosworks and Josiah Rowe seem busy elsewhere these days, as I'm sure they could bring it up to scratch. Angmering 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend nominating any of those two anyway, but given the interest in the new series etc. don't be surprised if someone else will nominate. Good luck to whoever tackles the flagship article - they need it. LuciferMorgan 11:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Doctor Who missing episodes]] FAR

message: One of the CDs listed on the Big Finish audio page is Doctor Who Magazine #380.  Can someone put up an article for this or remove the link, it goes to the main DW page.  Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreman (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry thanks for the catch! The Core-Man 12:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DWM #380

message: I just removed a link to CD06 in the Big Finish Listing of DW Audios and replaced it with the individual story links.  I think that it's great the we link future adventures, but once the story has been released a page should go up.  This is the only instance that a link was created, but an article was never made.
Just thought you should know. The Core-Man 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Links

message: The Tardis image has been determined to be a derivative work, and therefore the originator does not have the rights to it.  If it's to be kept, it needs:
# to be removed from all non-article locations--no more using it as a logo in Wikipedia space, user space or any talk page.
# to have a fair use case made for each use in every article it is included. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember this already being discussed before. It's not a derivative as it is simply a police box.  Doctor Who holds the trade mark of a police box, but they do not own the copyright on every policy box in existence. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the source. The author specifically designed it as a version of the TARDIS. The TARDIS is copyrighted. The image is derivative. Derivative works are prohibited. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson You can easily use a GFDL version of a normal police box and use that as your logo. - Shazaam! - <*> 03:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still a bit absurd given the image, but fine, we'll get another image of a blue police box. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there's a genuine free image of a real Tardis hanging around somewhere on Wikipedia.  Someone took a picture of a model of a Tardis on display in a museum. --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be :Image:TARDIS.jpg, which I've transparentised (dreadfully) to :Image:TARDIS-trans.png. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still not sure about the status of this, but it'll do for now. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:TARDIS1.png]]

message: This is a list of some images that appear in Doctor Who, Torchwood, and other related articles many of which lack necessary fair use rationales.  The strikethrough is used here to indicate an image that has been provided with a rationale.  They all need to be fixed.  They will be deleted under our copyright policy if this is not done. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationales required

message: Usually on Wikipedia, speech marks are used for episode titles within articles, and italics are used for individual television series, for example Doctor Who and Torchwood and "Evolution of the Daleks" and "The Lazarus Experiment". I was just wondering what makes Doctor Who the exception to this? Why are episode named italicized, when every other episode name on Wikipedia has speech marks? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Italics are used on long works. A serial is a long work composed of shorter works (and the shorter works use quotation marks). Matthew 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the episdoes (short works) of Doctor Who (a long work) should have quotation marks... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. An episode of the new series (e.g. Rose) should/would have quotation marks. Matthew 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But so should the old series. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also haven't had much of a chance to change the articles yet, but the main project page does now reflect the new policy, conforming to the MoS. The idea of italicizing serial titles was brought up at the MoS page for titles (at least, I think that's where it was brought up) - everyone (i.e., non-Doctor Who project people) seemed to agree that it made sense - so serial titles get italics, episode titles get quotes. --Brian Olsen 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is there's no way to do it all in a fell swoop. Everything will be wishy-washy and inconsistent if you do it as you come around to it. And of course the hideousness of placing Genesis of the Daleks next to "Evolution of the Daleks" is what necessitates the episodes being in italics, not that I agree with this. Outside Doctor Who articles, I make sure episodes use the quotation marks format, it's just weird inside Who articles. As far as I can tell, aren't individual Wikiprojects allowed to wave these guidelines if they have their own consistent style guide?~ZytheTalk to me! 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should just follow Wikipedia's rules on this - yes it'll take work, but it'll look better in the end. Can't anyone use AWB or something? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to Zythe, here - WikiProjects aren't allowed to waive the main Wikipedia guidelines. I thought they were for a while, but learned in a recent (very ugly) arbitration that they're not. If we create an exception for ourselves, we need to have a good reason, and consistency or attractiveness of formatting aren't considered good enough reasons. --Brian Olsen 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics/speech marks 

message: Someone has moved List of Doctor Who serials to Doctor Who serials - which I think is a bad thing - and List of Doctor Who DVD releases to Doctor Who DVD releases - which I think is less of a bad thing, as the article does discuss the release schedule as well as listing the releases, but they broke the history in doing it.  Neither can be straightforwardly moved back.  What do people think?  Should we ask an admin to move one or both articles back? Percy Snoodle 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it up on Wikipedia:Requested moves.  Another user has requested that the List of Doctor Who serials be speedily deleted so that the move back can go ahead (I've already moved the talk page back, and Wikipedia didn't have any problem with that - seems talk pages have different rules!).  The user that moved this article also moved List of Doctor Who DVD releases. Stephenb (Talk) 11:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List renaming 

message: Both New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club and its fanzine Time Space Visualiser have been up for deletion recently (in one case speedied then restored). It's been suggested to me that these would probably work better as a basis for Doctor Who in New Zealand, to parallel similar articles like Doctor Who in Australia. unfortunately, I don't have the information that would fill out an article like that, but hopefully someone here might...? Grutness...wha? 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: I searched a few of the Doctors and Companions and notice that some of them don't have Infoboxes for them.  I think that we should try to standard with the Template:Infobox Actor settings.  William Hartnell's infobox should be the basic way they are set up with their current age (or age at passing) and the flag from where they are born.  Let me know what you think? The Core-Man 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Doctors & Companions and Infoboxes 

message: This is tied into the whole italics/quotation marks discussion. I've started to make the changeover to quotation marks for episode titles - I've just done "Rose" and "The End of the World" so far - and I've realized there's a problem with all the templates that are used in the External Links and Reviews sections. These all automatically italicize the names. I started to create new templates to use for the new series - they'd be exactly the same, except they would use quotation marks instead of italics. I made one template :Template:Brief ep, which you can see on the page for "The End of the World", and then realized that we could also change the existing templates to use neither italics or quotes, which could then be inserted on the episode articles themselves.
So the two options, as I see it, are - 1) Modify the existing template, which will then mean going into every serial and episode article and adding   or " ", but we then wouldn't have several almost completely redundant templates, or 2) Create a second set of almost identical templates, which will then mean changing just the articles for the new series and Torchwood. (A third option, which I've done for "Rose", is not using templates at all, but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of having them in the first place.) Thoughts? --Brian Olsen 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates for External Links section

message: I hope no one minds since im not a member of the wiki project but I put a merge template on Dalek sec and Cult of Scaro because the Dalek sec page was a stub and i think it was a copy and past page ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dalek sec 

message: Shouldn't Korwin or the unamed aliens be mentioned in various other Doctor Who related articles such as Villains, races, etc?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're a bit unlikely to be seen again.  If they ever are, they can be added. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[42 (Doctor Who)|42]] 

message: Not sure where I should put this, but an interesting observation was made on the Outpost Gallifrey forums. In case anyone hasn't seen it yet, the TV version of Human Nature includes a shot where we see ink sketches of various past doctors. The interesting thing is that the selection of poses they used used were mirror images of the exact publicity photos selected for the Ten Doctors collage in the main Doctor Who article! See here (login needed) for a comparison. --Kwekubo 14:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think it's notable enough to be mentioned... it could be a coincidence, it's not a proven connection with Wikipedia. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I, but people here will probably be interested. --Kwekubo 14:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it on the project front page, deffo! Totnesmartin 08:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes is the answer! See Talk:Human Nature (Doctor Who episode)#The Ten Doctors. Gwinva 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia influences Human Nature!

message: Hi folks. This is an off-topic request but I think this is the best place to find the people most likely to know the answer. I am certain that I can remember an interview Terrance Dicks gave shortly after the tapes of Moonbase 3 were discovered in the United States in which his response to the discovery of the tapes was that he wished they'd stayed lost. Can anyone point me in the direction of a source for this quote? Thanks in advance - Joe King 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrance Dicks' Moonbase 3 quote

message: Hello to the members of the wikiproject for Doctor Who. I know that there is an ongoing debate about the length of the plot synopsis for the Doctors pages but I wanted to make the project aware that User:Dr. R.K.Z is blanking the entire section on the pages for Frontier in Space and Planet of the Daleks. Now I am not against pareing them down, but, I feel that the wholesale blanking of them is vandalism and an insult to the editors that put in the hard work in creating them. I have reported this to the Admin against vandalism page and they (or at least the admin in charge at the time) consider it a content dispute. Now if you members of the project are okay with these being blanked then I will let it go, but if you aren't maybe you can help keep an eye on these pages as I would prefer not to get blocked for violating the 3RR. Thanks for your time for reading this and also for any assistance that you are able to give. MarnetteD | Talk 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, cutting them down is fine, but don't just remove them wholesale; there still needs to be something - just not as much as we have now. I've been meaning to cut down some of them but the sheer enormity of the tasks puts me off. Perhaps we could divvy up the series and do one each? Totnesmartin 18:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A note about the blanking of pages

message: Can't we just remove all the sections/references relating to Tabloid press etc, and agree not to cite them?  Just in the last couple of days we've had 'Freema sacked' and 'Doctor Who axed' rumours plastered over every page possible, with no basis other than a dodgy report in The Sun.  BBC, of course, have denied the rumours (the DW-axing one is the silliest: common sense tells you the BBC are not going to rid themselves of such a golden-egg laying goose).  Quite frankly, The Sun exists to sell papers, not to disseminate news.  Lets stick to reliable sources. Please. (For non-British people out there, read Tabloids#As a sensational, gossip-filled newspaper to get some idea about how Tabloids differ from 'broadsheets').Gwinva 21:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove all tabloid references.  I always do.  The Sun and other papers sell papers by writing gossip and rumor. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the deal... if it is clearly presented in the wikipage as gossip and rumor from a cited source... then how can that be not factual... it is factual that this is a rumor... articles that state rumor as fact are the ones in error and all they need to be is corrected. There is no policy against citing tabloids.--Dr who1975 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it might be a fact that there are rumours.  So?  We don't report every fact that exists.  There will always be rumours.  Secondly, you can't cite the Sun for a statement 'there is a rumour that...'.  The Sun never said that.  The Sun said 'What we are reporting is true', which is blatantly wrong.  To write 'There is a rumour that Doctor Who will be axed after Series 4 (cite The Sun)', is as silly as saying 'there is a rumour that the sky is green (cite A.N.Idiot, My Science Studies, who once said:  "The sky is green").'  What is the point of reporting misinformation, assumptions and total fabrications, just because someone once said it? It's a fact they said it, but not an interesting or relevant fact.  Let's state facts about Doctor Who, not a list of things people have got wrong about it, unless it's pertinent to the discussion, or puts a statement in context.  eg.  'The BBC have indicated that Doctor Who will continue indefinitely, a statement issued in response to unfounded claims by The Sun (ref) that the series was to be axed'. Gwinva 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... but if you're citing a source like the sun that does give the rumor some notability.--Dr who1975 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sun has story which may not be true" -- not the most notable of occurrences, surely?  Mark H Wilkinson 06:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be a rumor if it was definetly true. There's lots of rumors that are still referenced on wikipedia even after they have been proven untrue (obviosly... these after the fact untrue references should only be for those rumors that gained a lot of media attention... rumors that are still yet be proven or disproven are a different story)... things like the rumor that Anthony Head was going to be the Master come to mind in the Dr. Who world but I bet if I went to Britanny Spear's or Michael Jackson's pages I could find some there too.--Dr who1975 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabloids

message: Just to let you know that User:TTN is blanking episode pages and redirecting them to the main series page, believing that they ALL contravene WP:EPISODE.  In the past 24 hours he has done this to Yes, Minister, Yes, Prime Minister, Foyle's War, The Cosby Show, Cupid, Iron Man, Twin Peaks, Nip/Tuck... now I've got bored of looking through his contributions history.  But perhaps just a matter of time before he turns his attention to the less well-written DW pages.  I've flagged this point for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes, and it might be worth keeping your eye on it in case a precedent is set. Some people are going to get very angry if consensus is not reached regarding what constitutes a good episode page, and when they should be used. Gwinva 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do people always go for canvassing? I doubt I'll touch the serials. They're multiple episodes each, and many seem well sourced or seem to have the possibility of being well sourced. TTN 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a lot of work myself on the DW episode articles recently (in the main reformatting the new series titles to quotes, wherever they occur). There's a lengthy discussion concerning TTN's behaviour at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes. Chris 42 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a lot to be said for covering Doctor Who from a season-by-season perspective.  Apart from the often poorly written plot summaries and lists of trivia related to casting, production and continuity, there isn't a lot to write about individual episodes in the recent seasons, but the way in which the season arcs are plotted over the episodes gives a good perspective for writing about Doctor Who. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is *nothing*, however, that is beneficial about the manner in which TTN is proceeding. --Ckatzchatspy 04:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode blanking

message: Discuss, please? Zythe 19:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except to observe that dating in works of fiction is nearly always futile from an encyclopedic point of view, there isn't a lot to say. This is essentially a fan activity and should take place on fan forums. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behold a new one: The Martha Jones dating controversy 

message: Apologies! In my enthusiasm for reformatting the new series episode titles to quotes using AWB, I've inadvertantly deleted a few horizontal lines (to denote episode breaks, presumably) in a few (not many) of the original series articles. Trouble is, I can't remember which ones they were. If anyone has them on their watchlists, please feel free to put them back if you haven't done so already. Sorry again, I'll be more careful in future. :-) Chris 42 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the horizontal lines were removed from the style advice anyway, so don't worry about it. Percy Snoodle 09:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal line deletion 

message: Could someone explain the point of this article? I fail to see what purpose it serves in its own right, let alone why it should be linked from the navigation box. --71.139.42.213 01:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TARDIS travellers 

message: Could someone fix Master (Doctor Who) - someone's tried to put in an infobox and messed it up. PMA 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Master (Doctor Who)]] 

message: I've created pages for Frozen Time and The Wishing Beast & The Vanity Box, so could some one please upload the covers?(Black Dalek 10:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And so it is done Black Dalek. The Core-Man 13:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frozen time

message: I'm unsure if anyone's noticed, but certain people on Wikipedia seem to be clamping down on fair use images without rationales and asking for the rationale added, or the image will be deleted. None of the book covers that fall under New Series Adventures (Doctor Who) have fair use rationales, nor do some of the screenshots used in the episode articles. I just thought I'd give the Project a heads up before their user talk ends up like this user's talk page, which'd prove a bit of work all in one go. LuciferMorgan 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: Now, I don't know the first thing about userboxes, so cutting and pasting using existing ones, I've produced this: 
	The angels have the blue box
which is such a brilliant line.  Like Larry, I want a T-shirt!  If anyone else likes the idea and can make it look better, then go ahead.  It's sitting on my user page at the moment, but I've not made any template pages or anything.  If it's too randomly fannish, then just write me off as a random fan; I'm happy! Gwinva 15:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox