Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 5

message: sorry  im a bit buzy at the mo so i won't be able to do much
--Madcow 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back again 

message: After The Beginning DVD set's come out and I can take a fair use screen grab from it to use as an illustration, I was thinking of putting this article up on peer review and thence onto FAC. Anyone have any thoughts? I know it's not as long as some featured articles, but I've had a look at some of the other featured biographical articles and I don't think it compares too badly. Any help with getting this up to a featured article status would be gratefully received, anyway. Angmering 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now up on peer review, here, if anybody has any suggestions. No feedback yet, which I take to mean either it's of no interest to most people, or completely perfect in every way. ;-) Angmering 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sydney Newman]] 

message: This is canon... isn't it? NP Chilla 11:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a project rule - we don't discuss canonicity :-) --Whouk (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, the reason why most people accept K-9 and Company is in continuity is because it links to Sarah and K-9's appearances in The Five Doctors. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, of course, it was an "official" spin-off made by and transmitted the BBC, à la Torchwood. --Whouk (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's the thing, you see - some people don't think K-9 and Company is definitively canon, so that's why it wasn't included there. In the end, it still is up for grabs, even if it leans towards the canon side. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[K-9 and Company]]

message: :Note: this comment was posted today to the latest archive.  I'm moving it here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're saying is that, for example, Davros's "Race" is "Kaled", but his "Species" is "Skaroian" (or whatever people from Skaro are called). Actually, I think I have just (unwittingly!) hit upon the snag with replacing "Race" with "Species"; though I personally don't know enough about this to make any real comments. NP Chilla 18:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were the case, then 'Squirrel' would be the name of the race (which it most definately isn't) and 'Terran' or 'Earthian' would be the species, when we know that Squirrel is quite definately the name of the species. I think there is certainly more of a case for calling them 'species' than 'races'.
No, you've got the wrong end of the stick: in Genesis of the Daleks it is made quite clear that the Kaleds and Thals are the same species ("Human", "Skaroian", or whatever), whilst "Kaled" is the name of their nationality (or race). See what I mean? NP Chilla 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the word 'races' in describing 'species'

message: We last talked about this in May 2005, where the consensus was reluctantly to put the two parters as separate story numbers. A recent note on the Doctor Who Reference Guide (who are now linking to our companion profiles) shows that OG has switched to numbering the two-parters as single story numbers, as have the DWRG, who adds: "Let's hope those at Wikipedia eventually follow so the three main portals show a unified front to the fandom on this." Maybe it's time to revive this conversation. What do you think? Shall we have Aliens of London as 164a and World War Three (Doctor Who) as 164b? The BBC numbering in the production code field should remain as is, of course. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, especially if OG and the DWRG are doing it that way.  It's unlikely that the BBC will ever number the old and new series together anyway, so we may as well go with the flow of fandom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For good practice, we should let this discussion run for a day or so before changing anything. If there are no serious objections by then, I'll start renumbering. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems just fine to me.--Sean|Black 08:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes a lot of sense.--Litefoot 08:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why not. NP Chilla 19:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should follow authorative sources to comply with the WIkipedia:verifiability policy --TimPope 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And we're done, I think. I hit the individual episodes, the main list as well as the DVD releases list. If I made any mistakes, please clean up after my mess. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Story numbering, part 2

message: Just a note: I'm going on holiday from January 27 to February 13, and will probably not have or have sporadic access to the Internet during that time, so it's as good a time as any to take a Wikibreak. I'll actually be in London (UK, not Ontario) from the 6th to the 11th, so if anyone nearby wants to touch base, e-mail me your contact details and we'll see if we can arrange something around our respective schedules. Don't break anything while I'm gone, okay? :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy your holiday! We'll try not to break anything. *crash* Oh dear. Maybe if I altered... no, that's made it worse... --Jamdav86 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In London from February 6 to 11

message: Needs cleanup, and I've never heard of it (but then I don't read the comic strips.)--TimPope 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone got himself a copy of the End Game trade paperback collecting the Eighth Doctor Threshold scripts and cobbled it together. I can clean it up, but technically I'm still on wikibreak. If it hasn't been done by the time I get back, I'll do it. I'll move it to Threshold (Doctor Who) first. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Threshold]] 

message: Now that IMDb has full episode support (although the data isn't fully migrated yet), I think it would be good to include links to IMDb on Wikipedia's episode pages. Just the usual:
*
A standard ordering in the links should be decided: either above or below the BBC cast/crew page. --KJBracey 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. (Looks like the IMDb pages need a bit of correction as to which regulars are in which eps.) —Whouk (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb episode links 

message: Right, we have a problem (or, more specifically, I have a problem, since I uploaded the image). This has been tagged for deletion. I have to supply a copyright tag (plus info) fitting of this image. It's from the Technical Guide, but what tag should I add? --JB Adder | Talk 13:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright: [[:Image:Sidearm.jpg]] 

message: This is now up as a featured article candidate here. Hopefully it can become the project's fifth featured article, although of course Doctor Who is only a small part of it — "minutes in my life of years", as the man himself once said. Angmering 23:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sydney Newman]] (again)

message: That's right, ladies and gentlemen: The Satan Pit will be the second part of the story, and part one is the unnamed one. Check Doctor Who Magazine #366 for more details. (PS: I've just changed the List of Doctor Who serials and Satan Pit pages for this info, so never say I don't do anything for you!) NP Chilla 18:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Satan Pit - Series 2, Episode 9

message: Some :Category:Doctor Who people articles are in several different subcategories of that cat. The one who just caught my eye was Jacqueline Rayner - that article is in :Category:Doctor Who novelists, :Category:Doctor Who writers, and :Category:Doctor Who producers.
As I understand the principles of categorization, an article shouldn't usually be in a category and its subcat - so there shouldn't be people in both :Category:Doctor Who writers and :Category:Doctor Who novelists. Is this right? And should people who are in several subcategories of :Category:Doctor Who people - such as Rayner, Russell T. Davies and Barry Letts- move to the top level cat? —Whouk (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories 

message: Can someone explain the rules on fair use of the various Doctor Who logos to me?  A while back I put them in to add a bit of colour to List of Doctor Who serials, and they had to be removed because that wasn't kosher.  We now use the logos on Doctor Who, each Doctor's page and a few others.  I gather there's a reason why we can't use them on every episode page, but I don't really understand what that reason is.  What triggered all of this was a recent anon edit pointing out that The Green Death was the last usage of the "Pertwee logo" until the TVM.  Of course, the TVM logo is slightly different from the Pertwee one, and I thought that if it were permissible it might be noteworthy to put a small image of the two logos next to the note.  (The Pertwee one is at :Image:Third Doctor logo.png and the shinier McGann one is at :Image:McGann.png.)  Would it be permissible under fair use to put a note and the relevant logo at each first and last use?  (So the diamond logo would be placed next to the existing notes at The Time Warrior and The Horns of Nimon, and so forth.)  Is that doable, or does it push fair use too far? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image description page has to contain fair use rationale for every single page that links to that image — see the separate justifications for separate pages at, say, :Image:Hand of God goal.jpg, for example. I don't think we've been very good at this, atcually. Angmering 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos 

message: The convention, that is, not the planet.  I'll be there — for the first time in years, I'm not in a play in February.  Anybody else going? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into it but decided I'd have to mortgage my house. And as I don't own a house... —Whouk (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone going to Gallifrey? 

message: Now that quite a few are cropping up, would it be worth having a table such as the one below on one of our pages somewhere? I'm not sure which one it'd best be suited to, mind, and it's probably not worth a page all of its own.
List of actors appearing in both the "classic" (1963–1989) and new (2005–) series of Doctor Who:
Actor           	Classic story            	Role                   	New story                         	Role
William Thomas  	Remembrance of the Daleks	Martin (the undertaker)	Boom Town                         	Mr Cleaver
Nisha Nayar     	Paradise Towers          	Red Kang (uncredited)  	Bad Wolf / The Parting of the Ways	Female Programmer
Pauline Collins 	The Faceless Ones        	Samantha Briggs        	Tooth and Claw                    	Queen Victoria
Elisabeth Sladen	Various                  	Sarah Jane Smith       	School Reunion                    	Sarah Jane Smith
John Leeson     	Various                  	K-9                    	School Reunion                    	K-9
Colin Spaull    	Revelation of the Daleks 	Lilt                   	Rise of the Cybermen              	Mr Crane
David Warwick   	The Pirate Planet        	Kimus                  	Army of Ghosts / Doomsday         	Police Commissioner
There's also an actress who was in Fury from the Deep playing a role in episode seven, I believe, but that thread was yanked down off OG while I was offline for the past couple of days with computer problems, and I can't remember who it was now.
:Do we have a List of Doctor Who actors, becuase that would be the ideal place. If we haven't got one I'd happily make one, unless anyone objects. I know we already have the category but the page could be ordered by date of appearance.--Bjwebb (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Each of the serials' articles list the cast, and the List of Doctor Who supporting characters mentions the names of the actors of all the regularly appearing characters. Tim | meep in my general direction 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you think that a list of actors isn't necesarry? I don't feel the supporting characters page is appropriate for the table above, but I don't think that it deserves its own page.--Bjwebb (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the start of the :Category: Doctor Who actors is probably the best place. It's a nice idea. I've moved it there so people can feedback. Litefoot 13:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The place Litefoot has put the page is best for the moment, but wouldn't a List of Actors appearing in Doctor Who be a good idea. What do others think?--Bjwebb (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not worth the time and effort, IMHO. The category is the easiest way of maintaining a list, and is easier for users because it's automatically split. Anyone who's notable enough to be on Wikipedia should be in the cat. If they're not notable enough for their own article, they'll be in the case on the relevant serial page. A single list of actors would be ridiculously long - even the Celebrities in Doctor Who article is a bit excessive. —Whouk (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the biggest single contributors (250+) to the Actors Category I know that one is a bit excessive, but the sheer volume of listing every actor in a list is immense. I added the cast profiles to most stories and have a fair idea quite how many actors we're talking about here. So I vote against, for what it's worth. Litefoot 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — there seems little need for a list when we already have the category. Angmering 07:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right.--Bjwebb (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I. The table is a nice idea, but perhaps it's a little bit excessive for something of this nature. NP Chilla 16:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Worth having a classic / new series appearances table?

message: :The place Litefoot has put the page is best for the moment, but wouldn't a List of Actors appearing in Doctor Who be a good idea. What do others think?--Bjwebb (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not worth the time and effort, IMHO. The category is the easiest way of maintaining a list, and is easier for users because it's automatically split. Anyone who's notable enough to be on Wikipedia should be in the cat. If they're not notable enough for their own article, they'll be in the case on the relevant serial page. A single list of actors would be ridiculously long - even the Celebrities in Doctor Who article is a bit excessive. —Whouk (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the biggest single contributors (250+) to the Actors Category I know that one is a bit excessive, but the sheer volume of listing every actor in a list is immense. I added the cast profiles to most stories and have a fair idea quite how many actors we're talking about here. So I vote against, for what it's worth. Litefoot 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — there seems little need for a list when we already have the category. Angmering 07:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right.--Bjwebb (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I. The table is a nice idea, but perhaps it's a little bit excessive for something of this nature. NP Chilla 16:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Actors appearing in Doctor Who]]