Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Doctor Who (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject discussion

Characters portrayed by Jenna Coleman (II)[edit]

The issue described at Talk:Jenna Coleman#Oswin vs Clara Oswin vs Clara has flared up again. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Episode running time[edit]

I notice that some editors are nitpicking over episode running times, making up rules along the ways, which in turn triggers mass-edits (which are unsourced). I can foresee a massive edit war if this goes on, so I revert them on the spot. So let's be clear: the episode length is the length of the initial timeslot that is reserved for it, rounded to the nearest five minute slot. Barring discrepancies larger then five minutes during initial airing, they will remain that way. This has always been true for all episodic articles, and I don't see why DW is suddenly going anal about specifying exact running times to the minute. I know MOS:TV is silent about this, so perhaps this needs discussion. But I think that would be wasting too much energy. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

On another episode times issue - the serials page needs updated. The intro says "Unless otherwise noted, the new episodes are 45 minutes long." - but the article then fails to note episodes that are 60 minutes (eg Christmas Invasion). Should he article be changed so that these are noted, or should the into be changed? (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
PS - this would also be true with the line for the original run: "Unless otherwise noted, episodes in this period are 25 minutes long" (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015[edit]

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas - featured article candidate[edit]

I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.

The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

On Target fan site is gone[edit]

The University of Leeds' IT staff apparently did some housecleaning in August or September 2015 and deleted the personal home pages for students and staff who are no longer active. One item that was deleted was the "On Target - fansite" at which seems to have covered Doctor Who books. At present there are 191 links from Wikipedia to this database.[1]

I found an earlier thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 28#On Target now a dead link where the site was a 404 on 26 August 2013 and back in business on 14 September 2013. That thread said the On Target pages had disappeared for a few weeks a couple of times. I suspect what happens is that the university notifies all users that they will be deleting the pages and give them some time to respond and state they wish to keep their page. Whoever owned ecl6nb must have been slow in responding a few times which is why the pages were deleted and then restored.

I did some hunting around but was unable to figure out the name of the student or staff member who had maintained the On Target pages. Their personal page would have been at I was looking for the name to see if Google could see if that person has moved their personal stuff to another host.

I e-mailed the university's webmaster to see if they could restore the content. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

it'd be more productive to see if the links are on That would be a more permanent solution than hoping on the goodwill of the university which has no obligation to restore it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Tim Neal was the creator of the site apparently. At the moment the Leeds robots.txt file is blocking the Internet Archive from crawling it. (And the IA also interprets this as saying that it should not show results from any previous crawls that might have been permitted). If there is any answer from the university's admins, it would be good if they could restore the pages for a few days, and whitelist them on robots.txt, so the IA can make (and keep) a copy. Jheald (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I heard back from Leeds IT asking of the pages could be restored. "Sorry, no, the staff member left and we reclaim disk space once that happens. The information should never have been on our servers anyway." Thank you for recalling the person's name. I sent a friend request to Tim on Facebook to see if he has a copy or can ask Leeds for it to be restored. Unfortunately, FB got rid of the thing where you include a message with the friend request. We'll see if he accepts from strangers. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
You can send messages on FB even if you're not a friend. On their profile page, use the Message thing just after + Follow --Redrose64 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
How bad is this for article referencing? Are there any other websites dealing with the Target (etc) books, or even a book on the subject that we can use to replace lost references? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
A possible replacement is - Unfortunately, I don't think it qualifies as a WP:RS for Wikipedia. A better source is the book "The Target book : the history of the Target Dr. Who books" by David J Howe and Tim Neal (ISBN 1845830210)
So far there's been no response from Tim Neal . There's some good news in that Facebook will be getting rid of the "other messages" black hole.[2] Once it seems the other messages feature has been removed I'll message Tim again. Unfortunately, it seems he very rarely uses Facebook. For those with Facebook accounts you can view your own "Other" messages at Ideally, Tim himself escapes from the Daleks and has a copy of the On Target pages that WP editors can then use to hunt down replacement sources if On Target itself can't be posted on line in a WP:RS way. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ian Marter needs RS[edit]

Ian Marter was gutted because of a lack of reliable sourcing? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Counter-productive reverting[edit]

On practically any Doctor Who article I edit, User:DonQuixote reverts my edits. Whilst he is sometimes right in doing so on reflection (Time and the Rani), most of the time he isn't, and it is only after a long discussion on his talk page does he back down and allow me to make the edit without it being reverted - The Impossible Astronaut being the best example of this. Current issue is whether to include Andrew Cartmel under "writer" for Survival, as Stephan Moffat is included in The End of Time.... Spa-Franks (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that I revert your edits because I think that they're unencyclopaedic?--and that I "back down" when you constrain yourself to encyclopaedic content (e.g. The Impossible Astronaut example above where the final edit is greatly different from you original edit).
As to Cartmel, he added one line to the end of Survival as script editor, while Moffat wrote an original scene for The End of Time and it was intended as such from the get-go. If you can show how this is wrong, please do so. DonQuixote (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I really don't see the difference between Moffat and Cartmel here. It's not an edit to the script, it's an entirely new line that's put in and should be treated as Cartmel having written it: Munro had no involvement, just as Davies had no involvement. Cartmel's role as script editor was to edit existing scenes and lines, not write new ones altogether - the so-called Cartmel master plan is, for example, dropping "we" into Remembrance of the Daleks rather than "they". Spa-Franks (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The infobox is for quick information. Specific information, such as a single line being added because of production reasons, can be mentioned in the article proper. And script editors add lines all the time, so this really isn't an exception. As for Moffat, he wasn't the script editor (or head writer) for End of Time and they specifically mentioned how Davies intentionally handed the final scene off to Moffat, so it was intentionally co-written. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Was Cartmel credited as co-writer either in the opening titles or closing credits? If not, we don't credit him either. The fact is, virtually all of the DW script editors (from David Whitaker right through to Andrew Cartmel) added words or sentences to pretty much every story that passed through their hands. As the BBC didn't credit them as co-writers, nor should we. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
So why do we credit Moffat? It's really inconsistent. In any case, I didn't come here for a debate about Survival, I came here to criticise DonQuixote's modus operandii. It's not correct to be reverting everything unless proved otherwise: as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia works the other way round. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If you think that crediting Moffat for his one scene is fannish pedantry, then feel free to remove it. As for how Wikipedia works, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but an encyclopaedia with a focus on encyclopaedic content. Unencyclopaedic content is, by its very nature, counter-productive and can, and will, be removed. If you think that the removal was unjustified, then feel free to bring it up on the talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I always tend to operate under a process of not removing anything unless it's objectively unencyclopaedic. The sheer fact we are debating this shows it is not objectively unencyclopaedic. Your policy seems to be "revert first, ask questions later". Spa-Franks (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Funny that you mention that because I have to admit that I'm a very lazy editor and only remove those things that are unambiguously unencyclopaedic (that's also why I'm not making too much of a fuss on Moffat in End of Time because there's a little bit of ambiguity there). It's clearly fannish pedantry to include credit for a single line of monologue written in an infobox aimed at the general reader; it's also clearly fannish pedantry to include in-universe content (see Time and the Rani) in an infobox aimed at the general reader; etc. And what question should I ask in these instances? The bottom line is that the onus is on you and anyone else who wants to add material, otherwise Wikipedia will turn into an indiscriminate collection of unencyclopaedic information. DonQuixote (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't. On Survival, there is no difference between Cartmel and Moffat - they both write one monologue at the very end of the serial. There are a lot of 'uncredited' people in infoboxes on many Doctor Who serial articles, some of which are even GAs or FAs. On The Impossible Astronaut, I don't see how "after being shot by the astronaut" is objectively unencyclopaedic. The average reader would have gone "what is this thing in the photograph that isn't explained in the caption?" - how you couldn't see this initially is beyond me, so no, I don't think you do remove things that are unambiguously unencylopaedic, pedantic, fanboyish, et cetera, et cetera, otherwise you'd change the captions on Doomsday and Remembrance of the Daleks. You're not a lazy editor, just a "I don't want the page edited" one. For example, this edit on River Song and this edit on Tegan Jovanka is unnecessary, as it's not as off-topic and trivial as you think, and adds to the article from an out-of-universe perspective. Especially with Tegan, what is wrong with pointing out that she's the longest-serving companion? Remember, each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't have a firm opinion on Moffat. If you think that there's no difference between him and Cartmel, then feel free to remove him. As for Impossible Astronaut, that wasn't your original edit--it was "seemingly begins to regenerate". In the context of the article, there's no "seemingly" about it; he does begin the process. As for River, mentioning another character leaving in an unrelated episode is off-topic and trivia. And as for Tegan, it's policy that you need to cite a reliable source that considers it notable.
Again, the bottom line is that any and all edits can be assessed and even reverted/removed. If you think that the assessment is wrong, then show how it is wrong--by finding the proper sources, discussing on the talk page, etc. You can't demand that other editors not assess your edits. DonQuixote (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


I trying to simplyfy navigation by removing unnecessary groups in several navboxes, (ie. {{Dalek stories}}), but am reverted by a single editor (and an IP) that don't get the message and demand consensus, but no counter arguments. So let's settle this here. I think the grouping by Doctor is unnecessary and basically cruft. It does not aid navigation and only bloats the template, as it often results in one episode per group. So barring any valid objections, I will reinstate my edits by the end of the week. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So, a single editor and an IP have reverted you, also a single editor. I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to make; we are all editors, after all, and it’s not as if your edits carry any more weight or authority than anyone else’s, is it. Or are you trying to argue otherwise? Be that as it may, I can't speak for the IP involved but personally I get the message loud and clear, thank you; I simply don't agree with it. Neither has anyone 'demanded' consensus as you falsely claim; requests have been made that it be ascertained. Is there something wrong with that? I thought that was the Wikipedian way and you have never shied away from referencing the consensus principle in support of your edits and position, as your posts here, for instance, will attest.
The above notwithstanding, you have made several claims regarding the editing of the navboxes in question which don’t seem to stack-up.
  • You state here that your ‘simplification’ is in line with common practice on Wikipedia. Having checked a goodly number of navboxes, however, I haven’t been able to substantiate this. From an analysis of the seventy-seven items listed at Doctor Who navigational boxes, for instance, it appears that listing the contents ‘by Doctor’ occurs more frequently than not.
  • You state that the ‘listing by Doctor’ format often results in one episode per group. It’s true that it sometimes results in one episode per group, but is that sufficient reason to change those navboxes where this does not apply or, indeed, any navboxes at all? ‘Simplification’ does not automatically equate to ‘better’. The existing format provides more granularity and superior navigation for those wishing to ascertain the relationship between the listed items and a particular Doctor. Reference to ‘bloat’ (or ‘space-wasting‘ as you have also called it) really carries the argument nowhere unless you can qualify these comments by explaining in what manner the affected space is limited, and what might be done with any which is saved.
  • Regarding the categorisation of ‘listing by Doctor’ as fancruft, I do not agree that the use in navboxes meets the criteria. Further, cruft can exist very much in the eye of the beholder and depend upon an observer’s knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, the subject. I mean no disrespect and personally find such matters interesting, but would struggle to understand why the Project, which enjoys robust and lengthy debate regarding such diverse topics as Should the Doctor Who Doctors image include John Hurt's War Doctor??? and Doctor Who (series 9) would even bat an eye at the use of the existing format, let alone calling it cruft. I would thus argue that utility outweighs any latent cruftiness, which should not be a consideration in this instance.
To close, just to clarify the matter for you, setting out your opinion and then stating that unless there are any ‘valid objections’ (although who is to be the arbiter of ‘validity’ is unclear) you will reinstate your edits isn’t obtaining consensus. I remain unpersuaded by your argument and consequently, your declaration notwithstanding, at the time of writing and pending the input of others, no consensus pertains. Bowdenford (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read the above (twice), you haven't provided any arguments to support the current format; only that it is the current format, and that you like to maintain this format as the status quo. That is not much of an argument; you need to explain why the current formatting is better. I explained why the current formatting is bad and needs to change. We simplyfy things all the time; look at the companions navboxes for example. As for the fancruft; yes it still exists, and mainly consists of trying to cram often redundant information in places where they do not belong, such as which Doctor an episode belongs to in navboxes.
Please review WP:NAVBOX and understand its purpose. They are used to navigate related articles; and are not ment for organizing information. So yes... barring any valid objections, I will make these navboxes more in line with the rest of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it would appear that reading my response twice was insufficient for you to apprehend the salient points. Allow me summarise, then.
  • If I have followed you correctly (my apologies if not) your rationale for the change is that simplification is ipso facto an improvement, the existing format does not aid navigation, it constitutes cruft and it wastes space.
  • My argument is that simplification is not ipso facto an improvement; improvement needs to be demonstrated. The existing format aids navigation for readers interested in tracking down further information regarding where the items listed have interacted with a particular Doctor. The categorisation as cruft is mistaken and subjective. Space wasting can only be a factor if the space taken by the navbox is limited in some way and it can be shown that it could be put to better use if the item were smaller.
I am not resistant to change and have no interest in maintaining the status quo. My objections are based upon the belief that the changes you wish to introduce are not supported by your arguments for them, will not result in an improvement and that the current format is more useful for navigation than the version you propose will be. You say that your changes will render these navboxes more in line with the rest of Wikipedia. My review of navboxes indicates otherwise, although I fear that verifying your claim by examining all of the project will take far longer than the time limit you have imposed. I can find no guidance indicating that consideration of these matters should be conducted to a deadline but, in the absence of a consensus view you are, of course, entirely free to edit navboxes in any way you see fit at any time you choose. Just like me, then. Bowdenford (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Requiring a wall of text to make your point is not helpfull. Also, I alraedy pointed WP:OTHER, so your arguments referring to other projects has no bearing. My only concern is navigation; these are "navboxes" after all. "improvement needs to be demonstrated"? You couldn't be more wrong. Improvements are self-evident; otheriwse they would not be improvements, would they? So yes, I still intend to remove the superflous groups. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You ask me to explain my position then criticise me for doing it. That you consider my response to constitute a 'wall of text' is your opinion, to which you are entitled but with which I disagree. I have taken the space required to set out my arguments in a logical fashion, using formatting, paragraphs and indenting to assist the reader. In any event, this is irrelevant to to the points at hand.

  • Again, you make a false claim. I have not made any arguments referring to other projects; the project I am clearly referring to is the Wikipedia project.
  • It is you who first introduced WP:OTHER in support of your position, or am I supposed to draw some other inference from your statements "My edits bring the Daleks/Davros (and others) more in line with common practice on Wikipedia..." and "I will make these navboxes more in line with the rest of Wikipedia"? I consider that you have now successfully argued, however, that how navboxes are formatted and dealt with elsewhere on Wikipedia should have no bearing, so let us have no more of that.
  • You are predicating your future editing of navboxes (and everything else, one must suppose), on the basis that "Improvements are self-evident; otheriwse (sic) they would not be improvements, would they?" On the assumption that you are not joking I am lost for words, other than to say that in my experience this claim would not normally be categorised as constituting logical discourse, reasoned debate or a sound basis for making any decisions at all.

So yes, in the absence of a consensus view you are, of course, entirely free to edit navboxes in any way you see fit at any time you choose. Just like me, then. Bowdenford (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to make; we are all editors, after all, and it’s not as if your edits carry any more weight or authority than anyone else’s" - I'm glad someone finally reminded Edokter of that. Edokter - you need to remove that over inflated admin head of yours and actually work with other people instead of assuming that everyone else is trying to ruin wiki, and that you are always right. (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Redlinked cast members[edit]

We've got a user Theoosmond (talk · contribs) on a drive to eliminate red links, not by creating articles but by delinking, which goes against WP:REDDEAL. See User talk:Theoosmond#Redlinked cast members. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Episode infobox images for Series 9 and earlier[edit]

In the past few series (at least in 7), the BBC had provided a title card for each episode, making it the clear ideal candidate for a NFC image to identify the episode within the infobox (meeting the general standard of WP:NFCI#1. In S9, I have not seen this practice continued, so I do see editors pulling a screencap from the episode as a infobox image (for example Face the Raven). However, I have noticed that media sites reviewing the episode seem to have a clear promotional image to identify the episode (eg: [3] for the same ep). I would strongly recommend that if the BBC does not pull out a title card, that these promo images be used instead since if the BBC is letting other press use that to ID the episode, that works for our purposes. To contrast, the current image on this is one that can be easily considered unnecessary since it shows elements that are easily described in text or other free images. I have not fully explored the BBC site to see what media images they do offer per episode but I suspect that you'd be able to find those images there too. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Utilising widely available promotional images, specifically designed by the BBC to distil key elements and/or characters in an episode, looks to be a logical choice and avoid many of the issues associated with screen grabs and the like. A good call, I would say. Bowdenford (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest using the Stuart Manning/Radio Times posters for Series 8 and 9, and the "movie posters" for Series 7. Sceptre (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
To check, are those "official" or just a good fan-made job? (I'm not familiar enough to know). --MASEM (t) 19:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Radio Times is a BBC publication, so they're most likely at least semi-official. They also look nicer than the promotional images. Sceptre (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not any more, the BBC sold it to Immediate Media Company London Ltd a few years ago, which is why you get so many articles on non-BBC shows nowadays. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The standard which seems to have been set for New Series infobox images is to use photographs/screen grabs rather than artistic representations, so the Radio Times posters would be a departure from that. Whether that would be a good thing or not is debatable. For encyclopaedic articles, I'm not sure that 'looking nicer' should be a determining factor. Wikipedia isn't completely blind to aesthetic considerations, but I would venture that there are more important considerations to be taken into account. Bowdenford (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking strictly from an NFCC standpoint, if the BBC has published an official title card for an episode (ala Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS), that is the most appropriate image since it is being used to show the marketing and branding used for the episode by the official copyright publishers. When we resort to a screenshot, we are introducing a potential bit of original research in deciding what is the most appropriate single shot of the episode to depict the episode. This is generally okay in lieu of anything official, but when there is an official image, we should be preferring those. Whether, in the S9 cases, that is the Radio Times posters, images that can be found directly off the BBC website as their promotional materials for an episode, or from a third-party website like AV Club or the like that has the press-image package, that's a point for discussion, but we should always try to use a publisher-selected image over an editor selected one, with common sense exceptions. For example, in the case of Face the Raven which is a user-selected image, compared to the lead image here which is clearly a BBC promo material, we should be using the BBC image as it shows the same elements and more. In the case of Heaven Sent (Doctor Who), the BBC's top image here [4] seems rather bland compared to other scenes so there may be some debate on a better image, though presently I'm not 100% sure if the current infobox image is the best replacement. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)