Jump to content

Talk:Doctor Who

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1.128.96.251 (talk) at 07:13, 18 July 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleDoctor Who is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 4, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
March 1, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
July 3, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
February 9, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 9, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
September 6, 2013Peer reviewNot reviewed
November 1, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 26, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

http://www.facebook.com/groups/JodieWhittaker

I can't locate the edit button on the main page. Has it been removed? How do I add this external link for Jodie Whittaker's facebook group? I've noticed other major social network sites are missing too. Are the Wikipedia admins for this page still living in 1963 when Doctor Who first started? 1.128.96.251 (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up on my edit the documentation for the field states "Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." I just don't see how the various "making of" shows that have been a part of the series since its return in 2005 (how can that be 12 years ago already - timey wimey again) fit into that description. As ever that is just one editors take on things and other input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree now that I realized that Confidential and Extra weren't meant to be there, and this is further supported by the template's documentation. They're listed in the "aftershows" table now anyways. -- AlexTW 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do they not count as spin-offs? It's just making me wonder about a different article that has a similar-ish "related" series to Confidential. —anemoneprojectors— 16:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not "spin-offs" since a spin-off is part of the Narrative thread of a show. They are "making of" documentaries. As to other articles a) please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and b) they should be removed from those article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BBC-TV / BBC-1

"BBC Television" and "BBC-1" were seen as two seperate entities within the BBC in 1964 (and the months at the end of 1963 prior to the changeover).

Check out the BBC Genome service to see how the channel was listed at the change over period in April 1964. It became a new channel by default when BBC-2 was introduced.

What harm does it do adding one line noting that the first five months of Doctor Who went out on BBC-TV? None. Less than none?

Besides, there's no consistancy on wiki on the channel name. The Quatermass serials of the 1950s, for example, are just listed for 'BBC'. Not 'BBC-1', which by your definition of Doctor Who it would merit (it doesn't, but that's another matter). They actually went out on the BBC 'Television Service', but 'BBC' would suffice.

From 23 November 1963 to April 21 1964, Doctor Who was broadcast on "BBC-TV". The entry should be amended to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest thing to resolve this is to cite a reliable secondary source stating the above. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did some occasional freelance research work for the BBC over a five year period up to 2011. I am not expecting any further payment or work from them. There is no conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Genome listing for the last day of 'BBC Television'. http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbctv/1964-04-17
BBC Genome listing for the first day of 'BBC-1'. http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1964-04-20
The BBC site differentiates between the two there. What more proof do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combing through the listings and gleaning information to reflect the above statements constitutes synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read BBC One where the gist of that article is that BBC TV and BBC One are the same entity. DonQuixote (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the entry further down the page where Doctor Who is listed as debuting on BBC-TV. If it is permitted there, why not in the info box? It'll only add one line and would reflect accuracy. Unless you would prefer to have it stating incorrect information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between what you're trying to do and what that line of text is saying. You're trying to divide up BBC One into two separate entities and wikilinking to the incorrect article to boot. According to the BBC One article, BBC One is a single entity that changed its name a couple of times. The infobox is for a simple presentation of information. Anything more complicated, such as BBC One previously being called BBC TV, can go in the body of the article (most probably in BBC One's own article, which it already is). DonQuixote (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the BBC HD channel get two entries in the simple info box when they're both the same channel with an amended name? Where's the consistancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should really read the articles. People spent time researching reliable secondary sources so that we can read up on things like As a result, on 3 November 2010, BBC One HD launched as a separate simulcast of the channel and at approximately the same time, BBC HD's broadcast hours were extended to twelve hours a day. (from BBC HD) DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're so concerned about accuracy, why not just add the one line to accurately reflect the broadcast history details in this instance? In any case, are you not going to add the Chicago PBS broadcast premiere of 'The Five Doctors' and New Zealand TV for the world debut of 'Silver Nemesis' Part Two and Three to the Broadcast list box? It deserves inclusion there IF YOU WANT TO BE ACCURATE. There is no consistency and no good reason why 'BBC-TV' isn't in the box. It's one more line - what difference does it make to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. (emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13th Doc - Jodie Whittaker

It has been officially announced, Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor in the house. Please update the wiki to reflect this. Sources : https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/886608420241117185 & http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40624288

Not sure if you've actually checked the article, but this was done only minutes after the announcement. -- AlexTW 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Alex, you might want to recheck that. There is (at the time of my posting this) NO mention of Jodie Whittaker anywhere. Got the feeling somebody (whose not happy with a female Doc) is quickly re-editing her out.

You might want to recheck that yourself. Perhaps clear your browser cache? And check the article's history - it's definitely been added, it hasn't been removed by anyone. -- AlexTW 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A "female" or a "woman"?

There's been some edit war over "a female will be Dr Who" vs. "a woman will be Dr Who"; apparently some feel strongly about this. I don't see why it matters either way. So I thought I'd help others follow WP:BRD and discuss rather than war.

I'm wondering if part of this has to do with MOS:ENGVAR? I heard Brits tend to use female primarily as an adjective, while Yanks use it as noun or adjective. (I'm a Yank, so IDK.) If true, I think ENGVAR/COMMONALITY would say we use "a woman", since both Yanks and Brits understand that, while "a female" might sound odd to Brits.

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Woman" seems the more natural word to me, a British person. Style guides appear to prefer it too: see this, for example. I was not aware there was a transatlantic variation on this. (There is on the term "Brit": British people don't use it!) Bondegezou (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jodie Whittaker is a woman, not a female. Use of female in this context is offensive to women, and highly de-personalized. Moreover, I disagree that Americans use the two terms interchangeably; we do nothing of the sort. We use female to label a woman's gender, but describe her as a woman. The two terms are not interchangeable, and the 13th Doctor and the actor playing her should always be described as a woman. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should definitely be "woman" which seems natural and obvious to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who&oldid=791116580"