Talk:Doctor Who

Archives
October 2001 – November 2004 December 2004 – July 2005 July 2005 – March 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – February 2007

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Reboot

The reboot page lists the new series of Doctor Who as an example of a reboot. I've disputed this on the discussion board there and have considered just deleting the reference there (to be honest it seems a little confused in places with regard to reboot, reimagining, retcon and remake but I'm going to keep out of that). As far as I'm aware the new series is not a reboot, has never been stated as a reboot and has never been treated as such. The recent mention of Gallifray, the use of the TARDIS, the appearance of Sarah-Jane Smith and K-9 and the appearance of the head of an original Cyberman (amongst a whole host of other things) places this firmly as a continuation. As far as I'm aware Russell T. Davies has never stated this to be a reboot and has said quite the opposite. I believe I am right in stating that he has made various comments that bluntly state that this is a continuation of the same universe but that he isn't going to explain everything that has happened between the old series, the film and the new series.

So... what do you think? You can either debate it here or over there. Up to you really. Thought you'd want to know. AlanD 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to go unless you wish to add to my comments in discussion. Someone has deleted Doctor Who from there already (that was quick!) but you may wish to add something to the discussion page all the same as they haven't yet. AlanD 23:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I know that Peter Cushing played Doctor Who in two movies:

Dr. Who and the Daleks (1965)

Daleks' Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. (1966)

--Freeport38 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in there, under Spin-offs. --Ebyabe 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the new series more accurately described as a revival than a reboot. GracieLizzie 17:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some justification to using this term. It is established that a war has taken place between time-travelling races. So events in the "classic" series need not longer be part of history.80.193.203.174 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic. Could you clarify please? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reboot at all. It's a direct continuation - the show has made several links and references to incidents and events from the "classic" series. A reboot is an effective wiping of the slate, a fresh start, and the new series does not fall under this classification. Squirminator2k 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the blindingly obvious - the new series of Doctor Who is being marketed as a new series of Doctor Who. Not as a reboot, revamp, spin-off, UFO or any other kind of identified or unidentified object. I wish people would read their own words when they start these kinds of discussions. 90.152.12.130 14:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there could be some confusion between the UK and US meaning of "series". In the UK, series means the same as the US "season". In the US, new series means a new show, eg the various Star Trek shows. Star Trek: Enterprise is the fifth Star Trek series.

as its technically a brand new show, do we need a disambiguation page?--Secfrance 17:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

March Debut For New Series 3?

The article confidently states that doctor Who will return in March. Has this been announced officially? I know we're expecting it, but it just might be early April. [Dave F 24/2/'07]

It hasn't been officially announced, but apparently David Tennant said that the show would return in March in a recent issue of TV Times. It's listed on Outpost Gallifrey's News Page here (scroll down a bit, to the section "TV Times: DW returns in March, and Tennant to stay"). You're right that we should have a reference for that March start, though. I don't have access to the TV Times, so I'll put a temporary citation to OG in the article. If anyone out there does have the TV Times issue, please replace the OG reference with one from the magazine. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think I still have the TV Times I did get it and added a reference to Smith and Jones (Doctor Who). So I copy and pasted it from there ^_^. While we are on the subject though do we have any Australian fans who can replace the TV Week reference in Torchwood with a stronger less guesswork-y one? Or should we just use OG as a reference there? --GracieLizzie 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both....but even Tennant might not be privy to the whims of the schedulers. I am betting on a March start but wouldn't be surprised by an April one [Dave F. 25 Feb 2007]

I think that we're OK as long as we have the citation. If the schedulers decide on April instead, we can change it — but to the best of our current infoormation from what might reasonably be considered reliable sources, it's March. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - now confirmed by DWM to be 24th March - Yaaaay! Nice birthday pressie for me. DavidFarmbrough 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey, quoting DWB, is reporting that it's been changed to 31st March because of the European Championship. -- Gridlock Joe 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The European what championship? If this is a football thing, didn't they know baout this before setting the date? RT-D say they have had this date planned for months. I am still more inclined to believe DWM than DWB going on their past records. 82.44.214.197 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the European Football Championship. Moot point, see immediately below. -- Gridlock Joe 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the press release for DWM 380 (quoted on the OG News Page, says "and more exclusive news in Gallifrey Guardian - including three new episode titles, and one very important piece of information which was all true and correct when we went to press, but is, um, not actually true and correct anymore. And it's printed on four different pages." They're referring to the date. --The Missing Hour 02:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who gives one now? It's already started! Ninington 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I've just added a criticisms section, the references are on the AOL Doctor Whp message board if anyone wants to add a link-GeorgeFormby1

Removed. Message boards are not acceptable sources. CovenantD 10:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be relevent to add this to the viewship section?

In the latest issue of NEO Jonathan Clements discusses the dubbing and such of Who in Japan, and he mentions that apparently that the audience is rather confused as it has been aired at such a late time slot (11:55-0:42!) that they don't realise it's a family show. He also translated some comments from Japanese messageboards wherein the users say they think Billie Piper is fat and looks like a Hippo ¬_¬()... but I am not sure how relevant that is as it's just a nasty message posted by some non-notable person on the 'net, however it was reprinted by a magazine. What do you guys think? --GracieLizzie 00:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Billie Piper comments don't seem worthy of merit, but a short cited sentence about audience confusion about "Dokutaa Fuu" might be appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, maybe the comment on Billie Piper might be irrelivent but I think the time slot in Japan, etc.. is good.--Wiggstar69 15:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Added it, I'd misplaced my March copy of NEO so it took a while to find the reference. But I found a copy in WHSmiths today and I managed to jot down the page number and specifics. The actual sentence of 'interest' was "Broadcast in a relatively late night spot, Doctor Who has mystified adult viewers who do not realise it is a family show." -Jonathan Clements... the main body of the write-up was about the voice actors who dubbed certain characters. --GracieLizzie 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comic Relief

Come on Wiggstar69, that wasn't an appearance by the Tenth Doctor (bearded and with a Scottish accent)! And the sketch is hardly notable enough to include in the article. Stephenb (Talk) 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RND Charity Spoof

I put the artical under Charity episodes of doctor who, on the grounds that he used the sonic screwdriver and as iv'e mentioned under history has used a scottish accent before.

'On March 16, 2007 as part of Red Nose Dayon BBC1/2, The Tenth Doctor appeared with Catherine Tate in a short sketch in which he was teaching a class and she was an irritating student.'--Wiggstar69 17:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a sketch where David Tennant used the sonic screwdriver while playing a teacher with a Scottish accent, there's no real evidence that it was meant to be the Tenth Doctor, particularly by the DW production team (by which these things are usually determined). Stephenb (Talk) 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, although, having used David Tennant and having the sonic screw driver in the scetch is grounds enough to at least hold under the charity section, not as an episode but at least at a scetch which was obviously intending him to look like the doctor. On top of this may I remind you that the cloaths he was wearing were identical to those of the tenth doctor, all this is shurly enough for it to get a mention.--Wiggstar69 17:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

His clothing was similar but far from the same. I don't think you can read too much into the sketch, it's just too silly (the sonic screwdriver having a "turn people into Rose Tyler action figures" setting? I know the Master had a device which did something vaugely similar but it didn't turn people into dolls of other people). However I am in half a mind as to whether to mention it here, it doesn't feature the Doctor perse and cannot be really fit into canon at all... I have mentioned it on the Doctor Who spoofs page though. --GracieLizzie 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The sketch is as GracieLizzie put it, 'silly' and obviously was never intended to be anything other then exactly that, but as iv'e metioned (the above) there are enough connections beetween this scetch and Doctor Who to at least hold a place under the charity 'or' spoof section of this page.--Wiggstar69 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I am two minds, one part of me thinks "Mr. Logan almost certainly wasn't the Doctor so we can't include it!" the other half of me thinks "But it referenced Doctor Who in many ways, and therefore should be mentioned". So I am having a hard time being clear-cut about this. --GracieLizzie 17:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, but going on your descriptions, it doesn't sound quite "Who-ish" enough for the "Charity episodes" section - not on a par with Dimensions in Time, Curse of Fatal Death or the mini-episode, but it sounds like there are enough references to mention it on the Doctor Who spoofs page. I'd put it in that article rather than here. --Brian Olsen 18:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It has already been put onto the Doctor Who spoofs page thanks to GracieLizzie. The question is is it sutable to take it further onto the main page. May I remind you this has been done with many other similar spoof/Charity, episode/sketch's. So I feel it would fit comfotably in with them.--Wiggstar69 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO "Doctor Who has been satirised and spoofed on many occasions by comedians" is sufficient, esp as it is mentioned on the spoofs page. Notwithstanding, this was (IMO) most definitely not a charity episode, for the reason it was one in a series of several Catherine Tate sketches with different celebrity guests. It was therefore a Catherine Tate special, not a DW special (and, for that reason - even starring Tenant - did not have to make sense as a DW episode). Ros0709 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In taking a look at the description of the sketch on the spoof page, I would say no, it definitely doesn't belong on the main page. The whole purpose of spinning off a page is to cut down on the size of the main article, and this doesn't seem notable enough to merit an exception. --Brian Olsen 21:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats is fair enough, enough people have expressed a dislike to this small section and its probably (in the long run) not going to be a huge matter of interest.--Wiggstar69 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I don't know about anyone else, but this page seems to be getting a bit too long maybe its time for another Archive?--Wiggstar69 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this WP:WHO's, and List of Doctor Who serials's talk pages are getting a bit long. I think it could be time for an archive too. --GracieLizzie 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, for this page at least. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of episodes and serials

One of the prime reasons for people visiting the Doctor Who page is to get a List of episodes and serials -- this is now carefully hidden halfway down the page under the cryptic caption "Format". Could either a link be placed near the top of the page, or the title "Format" be replaced with something like "Format and episodes" so that people know where to look in the page. Rnt20 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC) "No. of episodes 724 (as of 25 December 2006) (List of episodes)" Matthew

Ninington 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a heading so it shows up in the Contents block. Dmforcier 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Series 3 trailer

Beginning in the 2007 episode Smith and Jones, Freema Agyeman will play Martha Jones, the Doctor's next ongoing companion.[26] Apart from her name, the casting of family members and the information that she will be a medical student, no details are currently available about her character.

There's a bit more on this which can be gleaned from the trailer now on the BBC website, plus the link itself may be of interest to the reader. Trouble is, some of the BBC content is UK-only, so would someone outside of the UK like to confirm it works for them?

main page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/ :: trailer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/index_trailer.shtml

Ros0709 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is pointless now, as everyone has found out. Look: Martha Jones. Ninington 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ninington 17:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need so much information about Doctor Who in Wikipedia?

I know all Doctor Who fans seem to love putting in Doctor Who info, but really, do we need so much of it? I'm guilty of it myself of course, but it just seems to me that if every tiny bit part player who's ever been in the show gets it mentioned in their article, down to what role they played and when it was, etc, why isn't the same attention to detail given to every show?

Here's just two examples: Maurice Denham and June Brown. Both these people have been in dozens of shows and Denham has 162 credits listed on IMDb, yet he gets a very sketchy article with an entire paragraph devoted to Doctor Who. I know you can find hundreds articles like this if you look. I think either the extreme detail about Doctor Who should be reduced, or loads more details should be added about every other piece of work the actors have done.

Nettyboo 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of Wikipedia - what little beauty there is, mind - is that if you think something needs addressing, you can do it yourself. However while we're on the subject, we don't really need articles detailing the anatomy of a Nidoqueen, nor do I think we need an explanation of what a door is, but hey ho. Squirminator2k 02:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that maybe there should be some kind of decision about the amount of information that should be put in. Do we need to have He made a guest appearance in the BBC science fiction television series Doctor Who in a serial called The Twin Dilemma (1984), which was also the first story to star Colin Baker in the title role as the Sixth Doctor. His character, Professor Edgeworth, was revealed to be the Time Lord Azmael. A later association with Doctor Who was his performance in the radio serial The Paradise of Death in 1993 alongside Jon Pertwee written when we could have Denham appeared in Doctor Who twice.

Obviously this goes for Star Trek, The Simpsons and any other shows that fans get hold of and put every bit of minutiae in. We don't get the same amount of information for shows like Secret Army, Minder and Rumpole of the Bailey, and there are hundreds of shows that don't even get a mention, let alone 2,000 articles featuring every minute detail.

Nettyboo 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a function of Wikipedia's systemic bias: many people who are interested in spending time working on Wikipedia tend to be fans of something or another. The reason that there's so much more detail about Doctor Who than about Secret Army is that there aren't as many people obsessively devoted to Secret Army. There haven't been hundreds of books published about Secret Army, or thousands of websites. In short, there isn't as much passionate interest in Secret Army as there is in Doctor Who. Because there is a lot of passionate devoted interest in Doctor Who, many individuals have contributed information related to Doctor Who to Wikipedia. This does sometimes result in disproportionate emphasis on Doctor Who and other subjects of fannish interest.

WikiProject Countering systemic bias is dedicated to addressing these sorts of imbalances. They tend to focus on improving articles in neglected subjects, such as articles about non-Western cultures, but I'm sure they'd be interested in your concerns. As you indicate, the choices for addressing this systemic bias in actors' articles are either to cut back fannish information, or to add more information about other aspects of the actors' careers to balance it out. While there's certainly a place for drastic editing, I think that when an article is little more than a stub with an overgrown Doctor Who section it's generally better to add than to subtract. I think the thing to do is ask whether the information might be of interest to a non-Doctor Who fan reading the article.

I've pruned Maurice Denham's entry slightly — in that case, I think that readers of the article probably won't care that Denham's character in The Twin Dilemma turned out to be a Time Lord named Azmael, but they might possibly be interested that it was Colin Baker's first story. The mention in June Brown doesn't seem terribly disproportionate to me — the only problem I saw is that it was redundant to mention her role both in the text and in the filmography.

It's good to remind editors that this is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and that actors' pages should reflect that. When I created a page for Helen Griffin, I tried to keep her Doctor Who involvement in proportion. Moderation is the keyword here: fans should be moderate in what we add, and try to present a balanced portrait. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is people can only write about what they know about and there happen to be a lot of people who watch Doctor Who and know a suprising amount about it. So why not cut down whats being writen? My reasons against this are purly based on matter of what interest for people who are reading the page, obviously your rarly going to find a non-doctor who fan reading these sites so I think the information can stay in the amount it is now and it will sit comfortably. Although I do often cut down what people have written when the start describing to a ridiculas detail. I say keep it as it is.--Wiggstar69 07:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah — it's common sense, really. If an actor's page goes off in irrelevant details about how the character they played in a 1974 Doctor Who story later appeared in a Virgin novel, that should obviously be deleted. But if it's got interesting and relevant information about his work on the programme, or even an anecdote from filming sourced to the DVD commentary, I don't see anything intriniscally wrong with that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but I frankly fail to see where your problem lies. More information than is necessary is definitely no problem when it comes to Wikipedia, particularly with articles that are "fannish" like Doctor Who. Even considering Wikipedia's Countering systemic bias, or whatever rabble they call it, as long as the article isn't ridden with POV's, then who cares? You know how much trouble I've saved by being able to look up specific episodes by various articles of information on Doctor Who, instead of just popping in DVD's and guessing? Yeah, it's geeky as hell to track a particular episode down by finding which planet is in it, but hey, it works! Besides, if this were an academic text book I had to consult in a class, I would say you have a point, but since Wikipedia isn't exactly something a sane professor will let you use for serious research, I use it for personal research and entertainment. At that point, your complaint is rather baseless. Shadowrun 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's good to be able to find all this information, the complaint I have is that the ratio of Doctor Who information to pretty much anything else on Wikipedia is 100 to 1. And according to Wikipedians, appearing on Doctor Who was any actors claim to fame. It is in effect a few weeks work for an actor, yet on any one of the actors pages they get heaps of information about it, and almost nothing about anything else. Here are a few more examples. Jacqueline Pearce (Blakes 7 mentioned in passing, Doctor Who a paragraph), Trevor Martin (surely he's done something else in his career!), Richard Hurndall (yes, I know he was the Doctor, but 72 credits in IMDb and the rest of his career is hardly mentioned), Gerald Flood, Martin Jarvis, Jean Marsh, etc etc etc. I could go on and on. When Derek Waring died, someone put Doctor Who in brackets on the obituary page - he was in two episodes! That was what he was supposed to be remembered for. That's like an eighty year old man dying and everyone remembering him for nothing else but the paper round he had for a few weeks when he was fifteen. Nettyboo 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The way to fix this is not to get rid of the information on these peoples pages about Doctor Who, but instead to write more on the other parts in their career. Unfortunatly I don't know much about the other parts of these peoples lives, but if it matters to somone that much then they will do somthing about it.--Wiggstar69 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, if it hasn't already been done (and if people have the time and web resources), one might create a Doctor Who wiki all on its own, similar to the Star Trek version over at http://memory-alpha.org ... Umrguy42 02:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Try http://tardis.wikia.com Gwinva 12:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WHAT? That's like saying: Do we really need to know if there's life on other planets? Do we really need to know who our parents are? Do we really need to know where we were born? Do we really need to explore space? That natural questioning is what defines us as humans! If not for that, we would simply be monkeys with MP3 players!

I agree! If anything, we need to put MORE information in the Doctor Who page!

Doctor Who Inspired Other Shows?

Would adding what shows/movies were influnced by Doctor Who be acceptable for the page? I'd say Bill and Ted took Doctor Who and made it into a comedy. (Matthewmilam 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

I am unsure they did, the Bill and Ted page mentions that there original time machine was a van (or car) and they changed it in pre-production due to it similarity to the De Lorean from Back to the Future which implies to me that they weren't aware of the TARDIS. Also I'd be wary of this section, even though it does sound interesting, I think it might invite a lot of OR and that we might be always chasing people for citations.--GracieLizzie 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also Bill and Ted's phone booth definitely isn't bigger on the inside than the outside!

Missing Episodes

An anonymous editor added "It has been reported that in 1972 all episodes then made were known to exist at the BBC, whilst by 1978 the practice of wiping tapes had ended.", which is quite a bold claim, and has no reference to the report cited. I have tagged these claims as needing citation, and would suggest that this text is removed completely if it cannot be substantiated.

I have provided a source- an article on the Doctor Who Restoration Team's website.Pawnkingthree 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Movie rumours

"There has recently been rumours that there is to be another Doctor Who Movie, where Rose is to be reunited with The Doctor. Although still unknown whether or not Rose is to return, boyband McFly have told many local newspapers that they have a cameo in a new Doctor Who movie playing themselves, meaning there will infact be a movie. Whether or not it'll be shown in Cinemas or just played on the bbc is still unknown." This needs to be cited, though it's probably nothing more than some misaligned rumour - Kwenn 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On reading this I felt really excited, although, I havn't found anything on it, the fact it came from McFly's mouth suggests that its probably true, (because thats not the sort of thing you make up), but thats if it is fact.

I seached google and nothing came up, so maybe if you told us where we could find this information from it would help.--Wiggstar69 21:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've searched as many search engines as I can think of and there's no site of a movie is the near future. Of course this doesn't mean it's not true, but I can't find any further information. (Fat lot of good that did, but hey.)

'We are about to start filming a cameo in the Dr Who Movie. Like in Just My Luck we're not characters, we are just going to be ourselves. We are really looking foward to it.'

I read this here at http://www.mcfly-unofficial.net/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1176127672&archive=&start_from=&ucat=5&

The site does not state where the piece comes from, but I can tell you it comes from a Newspaper of a town they visited on their Up Close and Personal Tour. The Doctor Who part was also mentioned in another interview. 212.139.54.217 16:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

McFly were asked about this on Entertainment Today and the yanswered with 'thats what we keep being told, but we don't know." Or something allong those lines. However, the interviewer just meant a part in the series. I hear Girls Aloud were to be in an episode but couldn't, maybe McFly ahve taken their place. Sashaxox 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarity needed here

"The airing of The Talons of Weng Chiang resulted in controversy for TVOntario as a result of accusations that the story was racist. Consequently the story was not rebroadcast. CBC began showing the series again in 2005" - the final sentence is unclear. Was Doctor Who as a whole repeated in 2005? Or the new series with Eccleston? Or just Talons of Weng Chiang?. Could any Canadians here please clear this vagueness up? Totnesmartin 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot Points?

I love DW way too much so I notice little things like this:

Their chief role in the great scheme of things, as they frequently remark in their instantly recognisable metallic voices, is to "Exterminate!", even destroying the Time Lords in the often referenced but never shown Time War.

I will have to go re-watch the first 2 new series so I can find you the source but it is mentioned by the Doctor that he had to destroy his own race to destroy the Daleks. The Daleks do not, have not and (presumably) never will have now the power to destory Gallifrey - if you happen to be Richard T Davis then I apologise and bow to the master (sorry bad pun) but if you aren't a writer please don't make the plot up as you go along - that's Richards job. To solve all that is needed is a quick edit but I thought it would be less rude to ask first. 90.152.12.130 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't say he destroyed his own race to destroy the daleks. The daleks destroyed his race and he destroyed them.

Talking to myself it seems but even the wiki Time War page doesn't agree with this bit of the article! ROFL! 90.152.12.130 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's Richard T Davies? ;-) Angmering 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's Russell T Davies Lizzie Harrison 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another BBC partner uses this article's summary...

Take a look at the programme description used for Doctor Who at vuze.com: "...the adventures of a mysterious time-traveller known as "the Doctor", who explores time and space with his companions, solving problems and righting wrongs..." Sound familiar? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Radio Times link

Radio Times currently have all the covers showing Doctor Who [1] so I've put this in Media links - hope this meets with approval. Don't know how long this will last on the RT website (so please monitor) but a useful image resource all the same ..... Zir 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting issues

As per the Manual of Style, series names are italicized (Doctor Who) and episode names are double-quoted ("Rose"). However, there are a few ambiguities raised by this:

1) What about story names? In the older half-hour serial format, several episodes make up a story, e.g. 'The Talons of Weng-Chiang' was literally six episodes long, each unnamed here. Since 1996, Doctor Who episodes are named and (usually) uncontinued, each forming it's own story. I suggest that we adopt the convention of formating story names like episodes, thus "The Talons of Weng-Chiang".

2) Are non-canon one-shots considered episodes, stories, or their own series for the purposes of formatting? I suggest the latter, e.g. The Curse of Fatal Death. Dmforcier 17:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is already a discussion about some of this at the project level. Dmforcier 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection Against Vandalism

I check the "History" listings on this article every day, and it appears to have vandalism posted and undone that often. I submit that this article should be given the protected status that was recently given to The Green Hornet to prevent such actions from being done in the first place. Ted Watson 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I say post a request for protection because it really is just getting ridiculous. The amount of IP vandalism this article gets should surely qualify it for semi-protection. Leeson 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)