Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 16

message: What should the origonal broadcast dates be for The Sarah Jane Adventures.  Should we use the BBC 1 dates, or should we note the CBBC channel dates?
Currently List of The Sarah Jane Adventures stories uses BBC 1, but Revenge of the Slitheen uses CBBC channel.
We should keep the format the same across articles.
StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now someone's changed the Stores page to the CBBC format.  We need to agree a format and use it.  I think it should be the CBBC episodes, as  that it when they were origonally broadcast.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the articles should be consistent. The accepted format is to use the first broadcast, period, even if that means listing CBBC one week and BBC1 the next week. (Similarly, if an episode airs earlier outside of the U.K., that becomes the "first broadcast" date for Wikipedia purposes.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If we use the BBC 1 dates, it would be incorrect, as they were not "origonally broadcast" on those dates - they were origonally broadcast a week earlier on the CBBC channel.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrestrial over "sneak-peek" digital, IMO. We've tended to do that several times, especially when the Airdates of Lost page was still up. And by the way, and you should really know this Ckatz, the original airdate refers to first broadcast in country of origin (e.g. Heroes and Lost which got aired slightly earlier last season). Will (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Terrestrial over "sneak-peek" digital" - if an episode is first broadcast on digital, then it is first broadcast on digital, and that date should be used.  "We've tended to do that several times" - doesn't make it correct.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 08:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah jane adventures 

message: I’ve been updating the fair use rationale on images in the Project Articles.  I would like to 
# Make sure what I’m doing is sufficient 
# To see if there is a consensus on how these should look.
I’ve seen fair use rationales ranging from one-line entries basically saying I think this is usable because it follows the fair use criteria, to bulleted lists with eight lines detailing how the image falls under fair use (some of which don’t apply to the image in question).
This is an example of what I’ve been using
""==Fair use for Ace (Doctor Who)==
This image, Ace1.jpg, is from a book cover and the image copyrighted is held by the BBC, the book publisher or the artist, I futurehawk|talk 18:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have there is pretty good for a rationale. In general, one-liners don't cut it, and eight lines is probably excessive (though no one would complain about it). Keep it to around that general template and you should be relatively fine. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That said I just found a good template at "Template:Non-free use rationale" so if anyone else wants to work on this I think this would be the best for consistency. I'm not planning to go back and change anything I've already done, but going forward this is what I will be using. Under source I'm only going to put "screen shot" or something similar, unless the source is stated already, but if someone starts to look up sources this should be updated. futurehawk|talk   00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images Fair Use Rationale 

message: I've placed a merge tag on Movellan to merge it to Destiny of the Daleks. Please comment. SolidPlaid 12:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an article listing Doctor Who races would be more appropriate for single appearance races like the Movellans. futurehawk|talk   17:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As mentioned in the discussion - List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens is probally best.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens is probally best. futurehawk|talk   19:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry was missing from monsters and aliens, so I added it with a "main page" link.  We need to trim the article before merging.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 10:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge note

message: This has been added to Template:Sontaran Stories.  I didn't see it, but reading the episode article, I'm not sure if it's correct.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 08:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  They were only mentioned.  Like Daleks were only mentioned in "School Reunion". DonQuixote 09:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that certantly shouldn't be there. --Wiggstar69 09:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.  StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 13:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Eye of the Gorgon]] 

message: Many of the Doctor Who related articles about actors from the series, (both regular cast and guests) use screen shots instead of free images. These images are in danger of being deleted, as it is reasonable that free images are available. For example the stub about Bernard Horsfall uses a screen shot that will be deleated 10-11-07 unless we can give a good reason why no free image is available. If anyone has pictures they have taken of people who have been involved in the production of Doctor Who, please upload them to Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and link them to related articales. futurehawk|talk   20:00, 04 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Images of Actors

message: There is a tag on the above article asking for it to be re-written.  Can someone who knows about her please update this. StuartDD ( t   •   c ) 10:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lucie Miller]] 

message: Three big finish stories have been tagged for notability
Grand Theft Cosmos
The Skull of Sobek
Max Warp
Apparantly, episodes now have substantial real world information about the episodes.  See also my question here.  Does anyone know of any such sources for these?  StuartDD contributions 10:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we speedy delete, or AFD? StuartDD contributions 12:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if notability is a good enough reason for speedy-ing in general. A PROD is generally the best option when you don't want to go through an AfD. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I've prodded them. Of course, if anyone objects to their deletion, they're welcome to remove the notice (though please replace the notability template unless you also go and establish it). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hi, guys! Great news - there is now a proper, sourced track-list for the Soundtrack Volume II. If anyone can do the magic with the track-listing-table that is on the Soundtrack Volume I's page, that'd be great! I'll have a go myself, but I'm not good with advanced or even moderately advanced Wikicode! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it, but there's a teeny weeny debate about OR going on there. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, but they are at the wrong titles. Since you reverted my moves, I'm bringing it here. First, the first album should be at Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack, without the "(Volume 1)" part. The 2nd soundtrack is fine where it is. The rest should be redirected to the first album; the disambig links are sufficient for finding the second album. There is absolutely no need for a disambiguation page.  — Edokter • Talk •  17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to sound threatening. I've replied in part on your talkpage, in part on the talkpage of the first volume. That's the place to have this discussion. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have community input, then this is the place. Don't unilaterally close discussions like this.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to move the soundtrack articles to their proper titles, unless there are other people objecting. This web of redirects is a true mess, and I'm just here to clean it up.  — Edokter • Talk •  23:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see... so if only one other person disagrees with you you're right? What a load of rubbish - get some consensus. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since this involves multiple pages, this is an appropriate place. It is inapropriate to arvitrarely close this discussion. But anyone is welcome to comment on Talk:Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack (Volume 1).  — Edokter • Talk •  11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack track-listing 

message: Images for the next batch of novels have been released, but there're all in one image, which I don't know how to seperate.Black Dalek 09:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 Novels

message: Some people have started putting "untitled 2008 episode" in the above template for the Tenth Doctor.  While we do know that they will appear, I think we should leave this out until we actually have a title for it.  What do othe people think? StuartDD contributions 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is here, someone keeps adding "Second doctor" for the two doctors, but I reverted because the "xth doctor" refers to the era.  Is that correct, or should we have this? StuartDD contributions 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this template is under discussion, a question: why does it exist? I thought we just got rid of a large number of bulky templates, replacing them with categories. Thoughts? -Ckatzchatspy 09:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should be taken out until we have a title as well. It's a navigational template, but there's nothing to navigate to.  — Edokter • Talk •  10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  Now, about The Two doctors - should this be included for second doctor or not? StuartDD contributions 15:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, considering that it was a Sixth Doctor story where he meets his "younger" self. DonQuixote 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As Edoktor said, there's nothing to navigate to, so until the story actually airs and we have an article about it, there's no point in putting it in yet. DonQuixote 19:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial reasoning was: we don't have a title yet, so there's not musch point in having it. Since Edokter went beyond that (It's a navigational template, but there's nothing to navigate to) I used that.  I realise that I should have waited, so sorry - but the point still stands. Why have something in a list of television stories when we don't have a title for it?  StuartDD contributions 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Probably not, considering that it was a Sixth Doctor story where he meets his "younger" self" - yes that was my reasoning.  I can see the ideas behind the inclusion, but the "villain tv stories" templates are grouped by era ratehr than those present - For example, we don't put "Five Doctors" under cybermen stories for anyone except the Fifth Doctor. StuartDD contributions 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Sontaran Stories]] 

message: Anon poster, claims to be Ed Stradling, the producer of one of the DVD documentaries, insists on adding information about the special features on the DVD release of Planet of Evil. My take is that the existence of features, per se, are not notable, and are practically advertising. We don't list features on other movies with DVD releases, do we? Don't have the time nor the patience these days to police articles, as you may have noted over the last year or so, so... I leave this in your capable hands to decide if it's notable or not. See discussion on respective user talk pages (User talk:Khaosworks and User talk:86.111.223.190). Ta.--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of the features does read like an advertisement to me, and I don't think it's notable enough to be on the page, at least not as it was. I'm sure there's loads of info in the documentaries that could vastly improve the article, and the relevant special features would then be included in the references section. --Brian Olsen 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can tell him that. He's also added the same kind of info to City of Death. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely Planet of Evil must note of a "making of" documentary about it? The only thing that needs changing is the advertising-like tone (and yes, COI wrist-slap for Stradling). Personally I found the doc extremely useful, providing context for the article, which until recently wasn't much more than "what happened and who was in it". Totnesmartin 13:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet of Evil

message: I did some retouching on TARDIS-trans.png, retraced the transparency mask and corrected the gamma to brighten it up a bit, using the original image as the source. I hope it's to everyone's liking.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff.--Wiggstar69 17:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:TARDIS-trans.png|TARDIS-trans.png]] 

message: Just FYI - I previously created a bunch of templates for use on episode articles, which duplicated the existing templates but used quotation marks instead of italics. I've gotten a little better at template syntax since then, so I've gone back to the original templates (, , etc.) and added the parameter "quotes". The templates default to italics, but if you add "quotes=y" (or "quotes=yes", or "quotes=1", doesn't matter what it's set to, just that it exists), they'll use quotation marks. I've also changed the template  a bit. In addition to "quotes", I've added "torch" and "tsja". If you set either of those parameters to yes (or whatever), it'll use the link for those shows instead of for Doctor Who. Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures can also take the "quotes" parameter; Torchwood defaults to quotation marks automatically so it's not needed. I've changed all the affected pages; please let me know if you spot any bugs.--Brian Olsen 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links templates 

message: As of Wednesday, the article on the TV Movie character, Chang Lee, has been nominated for deletion. DrWho42 04:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been redirected. Tim! 08:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chang Lee|Article for Deletion: Chang Lee]] 

message: I've made pages for Martha in the Mirror, The Many Hands and Snowglobe 7, could someone check for errors?Black Dalek 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error checking

message: ...because I'm not subscribed. It is also abused a lot by editors adding fancruft and complete misinformation preceded by "Doctor Who Magazine 388 says...". Of course, for those who are not subscribed, this information is completely unverifyable. So I tend to revert these edits asking for confirmation from other readers. All to often one comes along saying they can't find any reference. I know they have scoops, but (un)verifyability makes it hard to check.
So what is the best way dealing with supposed facts from DWM? I think if someone cites DWM, another reader has to confirm it on the article's talk page. Any thoughts?  — Edokter • Talk •  22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that reverting all edits which cite DWM until they're confirmed on the talk page would be going too far.  I think that it's sufficient that we stay aware of the problem of people misattributing information to DWM, and those of us with DWM subscriptions (such as me) can try to double-check them on a regular basis.  Of course, that's not to say that you can't question a dubious edit which is cited to DWM — if someone adds something saying "According to Doctor Who Magazine, Davros is returning in 2007 and will be played by Ian McKellen" it's reasonable to revert it and ask on the talk page.  (Although between Derek Jacobi and Kylie Minogue, it's hard to make up a casting rumour that's completely improbable...) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the latest DWM brought with it lots of edits to the serials page - some of which had to be corrected by a user who has it.  I can't verify DWM material - so for all I know, the information could be made up and tagged with DWM.  I think it should have to be verified by someone before it is included, though how we get IP's to follow this I don't know. StuartDD contributions 08:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got the latest issue, so I'll verify the citations to it on the serials page tomorrow.  Is there any other page which has questionable citations to DWM? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you check to see if Astrid's surname is given in there as Peth? An IP is saying on Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) that it is...--OZOO (What?) 09:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  There's a run-down of confirmed casting in a sidebar on page 4, in the "Gallifrey Guardian" section, and it lists Kylie Minogue's role as "Astrid Peth".  I'll drop by the VOTD page later and tidy up the reference, if it needs it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you also check this little factoid?  — Edokter • Talk •  20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's an error.  There's another sidebar summarizing previous appearances of the Sontarans, which discusses the off-hand mention of Sontarans in the Sarah Jane Adventures story "Eye of the Gorgon".  It ends by saying "so it would appear that they visited Earth again at some point during the mid-twentieth century...".  That could be taken as a hint about the setting of next year's Sontaran story (presumably how the anon editor read it), but it could also be completely irrelevant to the upcoming story.  It's certainly not definite enough to merit inclusion on the "list of serial" page.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been confirmed as false.  I think we need to come up with a systemn such that all DWM material has to be verified first.  StuartDD contributions 18:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an obvious system for dealing with this kind of situation, as spearheaded by the guy who started this thread: come to the project talk page and ask. You can always revert in the short term, and then follow it up by posting here (and/or on the article talk page), where someone with a DWM subscription can check things for you.  And if that's not enough, perhaps there ought to be a list of Wikipedians who are subscribed to the magazine kept hereabouts. --212.32.67.212 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The copy-and-paste job is also a dead give-away that's it's probably false.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I fail to understand why your not being subscribed to a magazine that reports facts and indicates clearly when things are only in the rumour or planning stages warrants you assumption that anyone who cites new facts when they receive it is lying? It will be discovered in due time if someone is lying, but to revert edits just because you haven't read the piece is not right. It would be like saying I didn't see that episode, so I'll revert all plot details because I'm not sure that those events happened... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate ''Doctor Who Magazine''... 

message: Input is requested at Talk:Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) regarding the removal of :Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg from Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). Please participate in the discussion.  — Edokter • Talk •  01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[:Image:Dr who christmas 07.jpg]] form Voyage of the Damned 

message: Please see Talk:The Sarah Jane Adventures#Merge for a poll regarding the merging of all main characters bar SJS into the character list. Thanks, Will (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Sarah Jane Adventures'' merge proposal 

message: Editors are requested to help raise episode articles to this standard. Thanks, Will (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done to all involved in getting it to that standard, its very impressive.--Wiggstar69 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{la|Doomsday (Doctor Who)}} is now a [[WP:GA|Good Article]] 

message: I have come upon the fact that link that is piped in the cast list is being done in different ways. In the classic series pages the link is Dr Who which goes to the overall article about the Doctor while in the new series the link is The Doctor, thus, taking the reader to the aritcle for the specific Doctor from the given story. For consistancies sake I feel that we should come to a consensus about which one of these we want listed and then make our decision a part of the MoS for our project. I would opt for the "Doctor (Doctor Who)" option as:
#The specific Doctor is already linked in the infobox and in the opening paragraph of most articles.
#The would be less work involved since only the new series would need editing changes.
Both of these are clerical sorts of things but I thought that this would be a good time to come to a decision about them so that we can make them part of the general cleanup that is going on. I look forward to your thoughts and thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The link for the Doctor in the cast list

message: * 
* 
:: --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion: Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast 

message: I just added to Bernard Archard that he is the oldest living cast member (regular or guest star) - is that correct? PMA (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of massive research (remember a lot of actors in days gone by were somewhat evasive about their ages) it's impossible to determine. And unless it's sourced it's OR and trivial. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, as people pass on and others age, this 'title' would shift and change, something very hard to keep track of on a point so obscure. Radagast (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest living cast member 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Mitchell. Tim! (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion closed - result was to "merge somewhere" - see link above for details. StuartDD contributions 12:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion notification 

message: Jhedman has added reviews to most of the Torchwood episode articles, from the blog The House Next Door. They seem well-written enough, and the Torchwood articles aren't exactly over-burdened with external links, but I thought I'd mention them here, and see what everybody thought. My main concern is that, from the username, I'd guess that she is the author of the reviews; they also appear to be her only contributions to Wikipedia. Should they stay or should they go? --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already deleted them before I read this message. The links are essentially a fan's blog that recounts the episodes (not really a review), so in that respect the links fail WP:EL. I've left a welcoming note to Jhedman.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. I should have taken a closer look at them. --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torchwood reviews 

message: The discussion is here. 
preceding unsigned comment was left by Nick mallory at 06:49, November 28, 2007 (UTC)
:Discussion closed, result to keep StuartDD contributions 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of Doctor Who items]] is up for deletion

message: An unknown IP keeps putting Doctor who lists to the bottom of the above template, but I think it is better second in the table.  What do others think? StuartDD contributions 14:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Potential edit war brewing I see. Protected for a week, while we can work it out. (personally, I think it's fine the way it is.)  — Edokter • Talk •  16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small dispute on [[Template:Doctor Who]] 

message: Did you know that some episodes of Doctor Who are in the Public Domain because they have no Copyright? They are Season 1 - 23 November 1963 - 12 September 1964, Season 2 - 31 October 1964 - 24 July 1965, Season 3 - 11 September 1965 - 16 July 1966, Season 4 - 10 September 1966 - 1 July 1967, Season 5 - 2 September 1967 - 1 June  1968, Season 6 - 10 August 1968 - 21 June 1969, Season 7 - 3 January - 20 June 1970, Season 8 - 2 January - 19 June 1971 and Season 9 - 1 January - 13 May 1972 and then Copyright for all episodes from 20 May 1972 onwards. If you got images or screenshots from these episodes that would partly resolve the images problem for Doctor Who articles.  Kathleen.wright5 07:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not correct. See Copyright restorations under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.  Because all of these episodes were still copyright in the UK, their country of original publication, US copyright in them was restored by the URAA.  Jheald (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Doctor Who episodes in the Public Domain 

message: To the members of the project please be aware that User:Nuttah is proposing to put this one episode up for WP:AFD. As I am not quite sure what third party sources can be used when recapping an episode of a TV series I thought that maybe some of you can give suggestions and/or be prepared to comment if/when it goes to AFD. Thanks for any help that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be of help. Will (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MarnetteD, I've reviewed Nuttah's post. If he has concerns about notability, let's make a realistic effort to address those concerns,  rather than pushing Nuttah towards an unnecessary AfD. Given the current climate toward anything television-related on Wikipedia, that is the best approach. --Ckatzchatspy 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Thanks for the suggestion. MarnetteD | Talk 05:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Greeks Bearing Gifts (Torchwood)]]'' 

message: Please provide input on Talk:K-9 (Doctor Who), where Zythe and I seem to be in a deadlock, regarding K-9's last appearence in the infobox. He aslo removed the finnish= field form , which I reverted. I think he's a little too bold in removing "in-universe" information.  — Edokter • Talk •  19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Appearence 

message: Bit late with this spam, however, please leave comments here. Will (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of serials is a Featured List Candidate 

message: I'm very much in favour of having this field removed. Unlike first appearances, last appearances are debatable and in many instances fans get all hissy with each other and seem to list the last five or six. For example, the Fifth Doctor lists both Adrozinai and Time Crash, K-9 seems to list every variant model's departure, and some editors on Sarah Jane like to list Hand of Fear, School Reunion, K-9 and The Lost Boy all as her last appearances. Where does it end? Most of these Doctor Who character articles fail Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) because they are written in a primarily in-universe style. A character's final televised appearance, among other details, should be written in the lead section of the article. The infobox field for it becomes messy and redundant.~ZytheTalk to me! 09:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Last appearances" field in infobox 

message: Outpost Gallifrey is now closed.  The old pages are still there (just now) but the links will need changed.  The intro page is here.  navigate manually to the page and change the links.  This will need to be done for every link. StuartDD contributions 12:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it looks like some of the links still work - so see if the link works first. StuartDD contributions 12:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the links will stay as they are, as an archive, but the episode guide will no longer be updated. So we won't be adding OG links for new episodes anymore, sadly. --Brian Olsen 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the links on Doctor Who story chronology didn't work till I updated them, but some of the others did. StuartDD contributions 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATTENTION: outpost Gallifrey changes 

message: I wasn't sure where to note this, so I'll put it here.  The Tenth doctor page at wikiquote is too long (link here - 260 kilobytes).  How should we split this up? - seasons seems most useful. StuartDD contributions 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiquote page too long 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: A Celebration your comments would be appriciated.--Wiggs 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who: A Celebration is up for deletion 

message: Please see discussion here about whether stories with no companions should be listed on the companion templates. StuartDD contributions 15:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companion templates 

message: Someone has suggested that Shalka Doctor be merged with Doctor (Doctor Who) - see discussion here StuartDD contributions 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger proposal 

message: Just wanted to point out that List of Doctor Who serials has been promoted to Featured List! Congratulations to everybody who's worked on it, and especially to Will for his work on the nomination! --Brian Olsen (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, a lot of work has been put into that by a lot of people.--Wiggs (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Doctor Who serials]] 

message: I just edited these two respective pages, to remove the "Freedom by Fire" comic appearance from Polly's page, and to add it to Victoria's, I put in the edit summary that she was not named in the story but that the same illustration was used throughout to depict Victoria, I've now realised that this isn't strictly true, and that one caption reads 'Polly', however there is no mistaking that the same illustration is used consistently throughout the Annual as well as in the following comic to depict Victoria who is named numerous times in the annual, and despite the fact that Annual illustrations aren't always the most accurate, she is dark haired rather than blond. So I think that despite the one caption which is clearly a mistake/typo, that this should be recognised as an appearance of Victoria rather than Polly. And that the annual taken as a whole supports this. But I'm willing to leave it to others to decide and reverse my edit if deemed appropriate.Number36 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern would be that deciding either way would be original research. Perhaps include in both, with a footnote containing the explanation? --Brian Olsen (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polly/Victoria 1969 Annual

message: Hi, I'm not saying to delete the novel and audio templates, but are they in the way on this larger template interrupting the flow of officially recognised television companions? Perhaps the novel and audio templates could be removed from this larger template and just appear on the relevant pages they link to, or perhaps put in a sub-category at the bottom of the larger template? Anyway, your thoughts... Wolf of Fenric (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that would concern me is that because of the issue of their being unclear canon, with no recognised official 'canon' as such, this, singling out non-televised companions, could perhaps be construed as taking a POV on the issue? You say 'officially recognised' in regards to the television companions, but on the other hand there's no official, erm, un-recognition of the non-televised companions, indeed in the case of something like the 8th Doctor radio stories, they've been broadcast by the BBC, and the others have been at least licenced by the BBC, so I can't see how they're less official in that sense.Number36 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real objections to the novel/audio companion template - my reason for voting them to be separate was because there are a lot of them, and it made the templates too big.  could it be poosible to have one template for televised companions, and another for the novel/audio companions. i.e - the template above contains television companions only, and a separate one be created for novels/audios to be placed into. StuartDD contributions 11:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can do away with this template alltogether. It is only used in two pages (one linking to the other) and a category, where it basically doesn't belong.  — Edokter • Talk •  18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents of [[Template:Doctorwhocompanions]]