Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 4

message: By Tenchi's request, I have reworked the Doctor Who Project boilerplate to include the portal link. It can be found here. Please feel free to comment. --JB Adder | Talk 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll notice, the Doctor Who link within the text actually links to the portal now. Not that this isn't a more visible alternative, but just to note the duplication. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're revising the project notice, can we fix the CSS so it conforms with Wikipedia:Template standardisation and get rid of that annoying message that's at the top of the notice now?  (I'd do it, but I haven't got a clue about CSS.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what annoying message? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one who's seeing it?  That's weird.  On all the talk pages that have the  notice (and at :Template:Doctorwhoproject) inside the box (above the police box picture) I've got a message saying, "The CSS for this template should be changed.  See Wikipedia:Template standardisation".  It's like that, too — the Wikipedia:Template standardisation isn't a link for some reason, just text.  It's been that way for a few days for me — I just assumed that everyone was seeing it.  I've seen that notice on a few other templates too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it at all. Try purging your cache? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Purged cache and restarted browser.  Maybe it's a Safari thing?  I haven't checked whether Firefox shows it or not.  Anyway, I had a look at the list of project notices at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace#WikiProject specific notices, and about half of them have it.  They're all templates that begin with " class="Talk-Notice" " instead of " class="messagebox standard-talk" ".  If it weren't for you not seeing it, I'd think that it was just that the "Talk-Notice" template was being deprecated for some reason, but if other folks aren't seeing it then I'm baffled.  I put two "messagebox standard-talk" versions of the project template here for comparison, based on the Chemistry example at Wikipedia:Template standardisation.  Is anybody else seeing this message? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It is a Safari thing: the message doesn't show up in Firefox.  Not that I have any idea why that would be, but at least it makes me feel slightly less insane. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it Safari too, so it's not just you.--Sean|Black 05:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It might just be me, but who tinks the portal graphic should be removed from the protalbox? (I just removed it from the one in my sandbox, if anyone wants to compare.) --JB Adder | Talk 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boilerplate/Portal 

message: Can someone knowledgable about fair use claims check this info I've provided for this image and see if it is sufficient. --TimPope 12:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is an ad illustration, shouldn't it be ? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems appropriate, I changed it to that tag. Thanks. --TimPope 13:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image tagging: [[:Image:Doctor Who Boardgame.jpg]] 

message: I have a lo of resouces for a number of things doctor  who is one of them and plus becuase im a fan of him and i will do anything to keep this project going . please can you let me join?
--Madcowpoo 18:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best regards, --Jamdav86 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: I've got some monsters and villans that don't appear in the monster or villan articles on this project should i add them in?
--Madcowpoo 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! See List of Doctor Who aliens for our list, and feel free to edit! Thanks!--Sean|Black 20:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  monsters 

message: Turns out you only have 2 not in your list i've added the morbius monster but im not sure where to put the 2nd one hes a villan, timelord and hes called the master
where should i put him?
--Madcowpoo 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean Master (Doctor Who)? --Jamdav86 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  doctor who aliens 

message: Been adding a few plot sections to Pertwee stories, including the two above - but they seem unique on DW serials on Wikipedia by not having images attached. As I'm aware of copyright rules on images and have none that would be suitable to add to either story, just thought I'd bring this up in case anyone else wanted to add an image to either story.  --Litefoot 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mutants and the Time Monster

message: When you want the Doctor's history split up do you mean split the new series from the old?
and who dose the to do list any way?
--Madcowpoo 21:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history split 

message: I think we should put our thoughts on this.look at number 2 on the to do list.
--Madcowpoo 21:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list no 2 

message: i added the 2005 logo to the project page under the 1996 logo is this ok?
--Madcowpoo 22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all right - thanks for doing that, actually. Originally the 1996 logo was there because it was being used for the project notice, but after we replaced that with a TARDIS, we forgot to change it. Welcome to the project. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  05 logo 

message: why don't we do the history of the doctor who logo?
--Madcow 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that important really. It only needs a passing mention in the history article, not a full page as you may be suggesting. --Jamdav86 20:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We talked about this before, and I think the consensus was to add the information to the History article (which hasn't been done, obviously).--Sean|Black 07:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another history idea

message: I was thinking maybe we could make a template to put on our userpages likes this
250px
Wikipedians have made a doctor who club but it needs more members starting with you. Click here to join
--Madcowpoo 09:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  member problem 

message: idea why don't we have a history of the logos or we could put each logo in the history of the doctors and each logo can be next to the series they were used in.
--Madcowpoo 11:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that History of Doctor Who has enough images, but we could put the logos next to each Doctor (or next to the season each logo was introduced) on List of Doctor Who serials.  Actually, I think I might just do that... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this. Having the logos on the individual Doctor pages has some relevance, but even then the fair use rationale for the logo is already a bit dodgy. I'm not sure I see the rationale of putting it on the Serials page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I just put them on the page, before I saw this comment.  The (probably weak) rationale would be that the logos are a visual illustration of the programme's development — arguably, the same as the use on the Doctor pages.  However, I don't know much about fair use doctrine and the ins and outs of copyright, so I yield to those more knowledgeable about the law (i.e., you, Terence). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which may make sense on the History page, which is why the original idea was to discuss the changes to the logos there, but much weaker on the serials page, which is a mere listing. Fair use is a grey area, and we should err on the side of caution, given how sensitive a topic it is around here these days. I'm reverting it, with regret. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  doctor logos 

message: Should we create a page for the expression "behind the sofa"? It has a good deal of cultural context in the UK, and sources could doubtless be found. Might also be interesting to try and find the earliest examples of it. These days, although strongly associated with Doctor Who, it's often used here to describe being frightened of any situation (either in a joking or a serious context). I.e., as a random example I remember when Angus Deayton was sacked as presenter of Have I Got News For You in 2002, he released a press statement saying that he looked forward to watching the next edition "from behind the sofa".
Just an idea, anyhow. Angmering 19:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  If D'oh! can have a Wikipedia page, then behind the sofa can. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, that sounds good to me too, although I'm not old enough to have watched Doctor Who when it first aired, my mum says she used to watch it from behind the sofa; so yeah, it does have a lot of cultural context here. --Cooksey 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, seems that it hasn't gone down too badly as an idea. I'll try and do some research to get some references and see what I can knock together in the next day or two. Angmering 22:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I never watched DW from behind the sofa, but I used to watch Worzel Gummidge from there :-) --Whouk (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Madcow, you can't reserve pages. Nobody can "steal" a page, anyway. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 'tis done. Even if I say so myself, I don't think it's a bad little article. Any suggestions for improvements, etc? Angmering 18:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was the one who deleted it because, as I said, you cannot "reserve" a page. If  I hadn't someone else would have. Anyway, the proper page has been written now. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already linked every mention of the phrase that existed in Wikipedia to it. (That's all two of them). Angmering 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yours thoughts, ladies and gents

message: we'll have to create a link other than here to the beind the sofa page any sugestions? --Madcow 19:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already linked every mention of the phrase that existed in Wikipedia to it. (That's all two of them). Angmering 20:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Behind the sofa link

message: so how are we going to do no 5?
--Madcow 16:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will. It's part of the category structure we're discussing above. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no 5 

message: This is just a heads-up that the ever-vexing subject of what the article on the TV movie should be titled has reared its ugly head once more at Talk:Doctor Who (Enemy Within).  Everybody's comments are welcome and encouraged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV movie page location (again!) 

message: OK, as discussed above I've created :Category:Doctor Who stories, with subcats for each of the Doctors.  Some are pretty empty right now (:Category:First Doctor stories, :Category:Second Doctor stories), but will fill out when we have more pages for Past Doctor Adventures, &c.  I don't know if anything else needs to be moved from :Category:Doctor Who spin-offs or anywhere else. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on categorization 

message: New userbox I made... type  for  and  (or any other Doctor) for 
--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 09:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Doctorwho]] 

message: I think this should go to WP:AFD, as link spam by User:Unitnews. Just running it by here first. Anyone thinks it's worth rewriting or keeping? --TimPope 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFD all the way. We don't have an article on OG (nor should we), so this needs to go.--Sean|Black 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poof, though I think an OG article would be reasonable. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable, maybe. Desirable is another thing.--Sean|Black 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose the bigger question is what we have for articles on fandom in general. Phil Sandifer 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, a Doctor Who fandom article would be very nice. Compare Tolkien fandom.--Sean|Black 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - without that article, an OG article is silly. Once that article exists, OG becomes a valid subarticle, I figure. :) Phil Sandifer 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Unitnews.co.uk]]