Talk:Doctor Who specials (2008–2010)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who specials (2008–2010) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Doctor Who specials (2008–2010) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 21, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
January 8, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Doctor Who High‑importance

	Doctor Who portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The moving of Doctor Who (2008-10 specials)[edit]

I am just curious into finding out why that this page along with the Discussion/Talk page was moved to a newer page. What was wrong with the previous page? Docwhoaza93 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was to change the dash (-) to a hyphen (–) Etron81 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One might argue that "2009 specials" is the common name here, despite not being technically accurate. I know that's what I've always called them, and would bet most other people do too. --DocNox (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Moffat in writers list for End of Time: Part 2[edit]

I've removed Steven Moffat's name from the writers column for End of Time: Part 2. This is mainly because it misrepresents the writing of the episode and implies both writers wrote significant portions to the episode. I feel it is something that is appropriately covered in the article itself. I'm fine with The Fires of Pompeii (Series 4) and Impossible Planet/Satan Pit (series 2) to have the uncredited writer because they contributed heavily to the episode. I don't think it would be appropriate to add Steven Moffat's name to The God Complex & Closing Time (both Series 6) just because he wrote the final scenes of those episodes. If you disagree, please discuss. The Windler talk 11:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Time[edit]

I noticed that The End of Time takes up two rows in the episode summary box. While this is understandable, as it is a two episode story, I find it odd. Unlike all of the other multi episode stories made since the show's revival in 2005, this one has only one overall title as opposed to each episode having its own title. As such, this story in particular is treated more like a classic serial on Wikipedia; the title is italicised instead of put in quotation marks, and it has only one article for the story as a whole as opposed to one for each episode. However, the summary box for each classic season has only one row for each story instead of one for each episode of each story. Because of this, I think it would be a good idea to condense the two rows in the episode summary box dedicated to The End of Time into one, for consistency. — The Mighty Trought (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colour contrast problems[edit]

It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Doctor references[edit]

Hi guys The reason why I keep deleting the references is due to the fact that no other Doctor Who series page has references in their main bios. Just thought I'd throw this out in the open. JackWhovian (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No concerns raised. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various maintens tags have been placed dating back to May 2020. I plan on fixing them myself but I wanted to see if anyother issues had arrised since then. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant An entire reassessment based solely on two maintenance tags is both troubling and concerning. If they are fixed, which you've noted you could do yourself, do you intend to close this reassessment? Why could this not have simply been a discussion on the specials' relevant talk page? -- Alex_21_TALK 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the templates have been there since 2020 and 2021 and there has been 189 revisions in the five years since it reached GA adding an additonal 11,534 bytes to the page so I think its fairly likely that an additional problem would be noticed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain the need for a reassessment instead of just a regular talk page discussion. Are there actually any other issues? -- Alex_21_TALK 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Given that the two {{citation needed}} templates have been repaired, do you intend to now close this reassessment, given the lack of any other issues you've raised? -- Alex_21_TALK 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant You seem to have forgotten about this. Any further updates? -- Alex_21_TALK 01:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for a review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant Do you agree that there is no longer a need for this reassessment? On what grounds of WP:GAR was it opened? Which of the six good article criteria do you believe this article no longer follows? -- Alex_21_TALK 05:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.