Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Another potential Good Topic

I know we've discussed a number of possible good topics here lately. This one would take quite a bit of work to improve those that are below GA standard, but I do think this may make an interesting topic. A number of these, especially from the Tennant and Smith eras, probably aren't too far away as they already have well fleshed-out reception and production sections, and just need a general cleanup before being nominated.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think this has some promise. For what each article needs, looking at a glance:

-The Christmas Invasion needs a Reception section. It also needs citations for various unsourced claims and a beef up in production info, which is very lacking despite what's already there.

-The Runaway Bride looks decent at a glance but needs a buff to Reception.

-The Next Doctor looks much the same but needs a Reception section. The Continuity section needs to be axed as well.

-The End of Time looks decent. Mostly just seems like basic cleanup and source additions.

-The Time of the Doctor's production could probably be expanded but it looks in a good state right now.

-Last Christmas looks decent at a glance. Needs some buffing up in places and cleanup but overall not a bad state.

-The Husbands of River Song needs a buff to Production and Reception and a massive trimming in the continuity section.

-The Return of Doctor Mysterio looks decent but needs buffs to Production and Promotion.

-Twice Upon a Time looks solid. Continuity could probably be trimmed, and some other areas need cleanup and expansion, but nothing too egregious.

-Resolution needs a Production and Reception buff.

-Spyfall needs a Production and Reception buff.

-Revolution of the Daleks needs a Production and Reception buff.

-Eve of the Daleks need a Production and Reception buff.

I'd say the articles that need the most work are all of Thirteen's specials and The Husbands of River Song. The other articles listed above have some issues, but the episodes listed there have the most amount of work needed in order to bring them to GA status. If we focus down on this I can see it being fairly do-able, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I do intend to work on the Time of the Doctor and the Capaldi specials. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be willing to start with the Whittaker era specials. Splitting the work by era seems like it may be the fastest way to achieve this one. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be willing to hit up whatever spots you want. I can probably try hitting up the non GA Tennant specials and help with Thirteen's if you two are hitting up the other areas. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you wanted to start with Tennant's that might be the best. That way each special is covered between the three of us. Then as we start finishing up we can jump in where others need help. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can't start on The Christmas Invasion in the coming days. Been a bit busy lately and I'll need to hit up some comments on my FL nomination, but I should be able to get started on this soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to help with anything that works best for you guys, I just don't want to step on any toes or anything like that. In particular, I'm super familiar with Capaldi and Tennant's run, but I'm good working on anything really. Garriefisher (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We always appreciate the extra assistance anywhere we can get it. Feel free to jump in anywhere you'd like to help out! All of Capaldi's specials and most of Tennant's need work based on the notes left above. If you're working heavily on any particular page just drop us a message so that we (hopefully) don't duplicate any work.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, feel free to update this chart as any progress is made, just so that we can all keep track of where this stands. I just sent EotD off to the powers that be at GAN. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a bit of help here: I'm struggling a bit to find reviews for The Christmas Invasion due to its age, and so far I have only managed to find a Radio Times and AV Club source. Any additional sources yall can find would be greatly appreciated in order to build a comprehensive reception section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Here's a standalone review from IGN and a retrospect from Cultbox. You may also be able to pull some more retrospective review-ish type content out of the some Christmas special rankings: Den of Geek, Vulture (let me know if you can't access this one because of the paywall and I'll email you the paragraph regarding this episode), Digital Spy, Mashable and ScreenRant all have 2-3 paragraphs on this episode specifically that you should be able to pull a few statements out of. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Thank you! I checked IGN and couldn't find that when I looked, so thank you for catching that one. I'll try and whip something up with this tomorrow if I have time, since this should hopefully be more than enough. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, glad I could help! Let me know if I can help anywhere else.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho due to my scheduling I don't think I'll be able to do as much major article overhauling as I'd like, so I'm going to be dropping out of helping this for the time being. If time allows I'll see if I can't help elsewhere but between my irl commitments and other WikiProject commitments I dunno how much I'll be able to contribute meaningfully to this project. I'm really sorry about this, but I figured I'd let you know just so that way it didn't seem like I was absconding my work. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the help you've provided so far! If you ever want to jump in anywhere on it in the future feel free, even if they're just minor edits. Best of luck on your other endeavors. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I haven't been on here in forever but I am responsible for a lot of Series 5-7 stuff back in the day (when I was a literal teenager lol). (I hope those hold up...I'm afraid to check and see if people added unsourced things or trivia.) I would maybe like to help in the next two weeks at least? I'm so glad I just happened to login and see how things are going and see that things have really revitalized. I can try to work on some Capaldi. Glimmer721 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I am working a bit on The Husbands of River Song. Glimmer721 (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yo welcome back! Thank you for all that work you did back in the day, and thank you for helping out on this drive as well, it's an honor to have you. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can see where I got tired of the grind of writing reception sections after episodes aired right at Nightmare in Silver. I'm interested in working on Capaldi era episodes probably the most right now because I'm due for a rewatch. It seems there are a lot more resources now digitally available. I do have some old DWM issues and DVDs that can help with certain classic series episodes, but we're not there yet... Glimmer721 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for the progress you did provide for Nightmare in silver as it really helped me kick into gear Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Also, I have a 2013 special edition of DWM that might have stuff for "Time of the Doctor" when we need that. Glimmer721 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: I've done a lot, let me know what you think! I know I have to work on the lead, cutting down the plot summary, and maybe some sources need to be updated or have more details. Glimmer721 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly has improved a lot with your contributions! It could definitely use some minor cleanup with the things you listed, but it's definitely a lot closer to GA standards now than it was before you started.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Exciting news! The lead list article for this future GT is now an FL! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I fear that my ADHD causes me to take on too many projects at a single time. Anyways, now that I'm over my recent case of COVID, I wanted to mention that I also plan on working towards the following GT:

Doctor Who specials (2022)

4 articles

"Eve of the Daleks"

"Legend of the Sea Devils"

"The Power of the Doctor"

TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel the exact same way, I have around five ongoing projects with another 3 I'm considering tackling. My blu Ray copies of TUAT and TRoDM arrived so I will likely get around to the Capaldi specials soon, hopefully Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: With the amount of planned goals it may be better to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals page similar to the task section on WP:USPREZ. It would be better centralized and easier to track instead of hunting down 5 different topics spread across as many seperate threads Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea honestly. If no one wants to beat me to it I'll try to start putting it together over the next week or so. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If you do it before the newsletter goes out, we could probably mention it and call for suggestions Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I can probably make topics for some of the fictional elements proposals (Such as alien species and companions) should this proposal go through. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Explain how a companion topic would go? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: I'd imagine something like this:

Companion (Doctor Who)

20 articles

List of Doctor Who spin-off companions

Susan Foreman

Ian Chesterton

Barbara Wright

Vicki (Doctor Who)

Steven Taylor

Dodo Chaplet

Ben and Polly

Jamie McCrimmon

Victoria Waterfield

Zoe Heriot

Liz Shaw

Jo Grant

Sarah Jane Smith

Harry Sullivan

Leela

K-9 (Doctor Who)

Romana (Doctor Who)

Adric

Nyssa (Doctor Who)

Tegan Jovanka

Vislor Turlough

Peri Brown

Mel Bush

Ace (Doctor Who)

Grace Holloway

Rose Tyler

Adam Mitchell

Jack Harkness

Mickey Smith

Donna Noble

Martha Jones

Astrid Peth

Wilfred Mott

Amy Pond

Rory Williams

River Song

Clara Oswald

Nardole

Bill Potts

Graham O'Brien

Ryan Sinclair

Yasmin Khan

Ruby Sunday

(Ignore the fact they're all classed "Unknown," I am too busy to check their individual rankings rn)

Obviously would need to include spin-off Companions. I'd imagine a few characters might be considerable here too such as Sara Kingdom and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart but I chose not to include anyone whose status was debatable for the time being. Either way, I do hope this helps visualize what I mean. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

OKay, I wasnt thinking of all companions classed in a single article but I think it works. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: though this gave me an idea for something like.

Sixth Doctor

7 articles

Colin Baker

Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures

"A Fix with Sontarans"

Would this work as a topic? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: would the Sixth Doctor's individual episodes, as well as Colin Baker need to be included in this topic? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Colin Baker maybe the individual episodes no. I included TTD because its the only season 21 episode to have 6. Another possible inclusion would be his audio range? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I can see the audio range being viable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant and Pokelego999: Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals now exists. Do we want to continue this discussion there? Either on that talk page or under the specific headers? Feel free to add any further ideas of your own. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

There should be a link to the page from somewhere besides this thread. Any ideas? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Perhaps in the "Organization" section? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Main Page

I've been taking a look at the main page recently and feel there's a few things that could be improved on. I'm more than willing to help with the suggestions, but I'd like to bring it up in discussion before anything is done.

Could we split the list of participants into those who are active and inactive? While sometimes it's hard to tell, there are many members on the list who haven't been active on the list for years (Some even more than a decade) and if people need to ping participants, it would be better for them to not have to sift through a list of people who have been inactive for eons. Done
The Task Forces listing seems strange given it's unlikely we're going to branch out into more task forces (Especially when Torchwood has been inactive for over a decade at this point). Should we still continue to list it as a possibility? I think it's unlikely it'll ever branch out. Done
The freenode channel no longer works and should probably be removed unless a new one is made, especially since most discussion takes place on-site these days. Done
The sample articles for books and audio plays (Lungbarrow and Jubilee (audio drama)) are in very bad shape despite being the sample articles. Additionally, do we really need a "sample device" article? The only device other than the Sonic we have an article for is the TARDIS, and there's very few other devices that would necessitate the need for a template. Pending
Should we include an updates infobox? (Similar to those used at Wikipedia:VGCHAR, for example) I feel it would be beneficial for keeping track of talk page discussion, especially given how active both this project and the fandom have been recently. Done
Could we include Radio Times' Doctor Who sections in the reference section? They're genuinely very helpful for giving an overview of information, gaining reviews, and sourcing cast members, among other things.[1][2] Done
The Deletion Discussion archive has not been updated in some time. I feel at this stage it should either be abandoned, or have some effort put into locating all of the deletion discussions and adding them to the list. Pending

These are just general things I've noticed of course, and aren't pressing issues, but I thought I'd bring them to attention to see what should be done about certain issues/if certain suggestions should be accepted and brought forward. Let me know your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I add that there's a DW MoS - WP:WHO/MOS - that appears to be in dire need of an update? I did comment on the talk page for that previously, though (perhaps understandably) it didn't garner any response.

Regarding your points, 1, 3 and 7 seem sensible and straightforward suggestions. ~~2 the seemingly unofficial taskforce getting the new series articles up to GA standard could be added here.~~ 5 there's an incredibly well hidden link in the 'Welcome' box that lists updates, but it appears to be working off the 'full list of pages' linked earlier in the sentence that is (a) incomplete, not containing any of the new series articles, and (b) includes articles that have been deleted since the list was compiled. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the new series task force idea. Though I do pose the idea of marking Torchwood historical. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my intention with this suggestion was more to recognise the work you and @TheDoctorWho and others have being doing on these articles rather than suggest more work needs to be done, but as you think it's a bad idea I'm happy to go back and strike the suggestion. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely feel Torchwood should be made historical given how inactive it's been for so long. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with marking the TW Taskforce as inactive, potentially merging any relevant content/participants here. Trimming the active participants here also seems worthwhile. No strong opinion from me on the rest.

There also used to be a newsletter for the WikiProject (March 2008, April 2008). I'd be willing to collaborate with someone on it, if anyone wanted to try and start it back up. It doesn't have to be monthly, it could be quarterly, biannually, etc. I think it would be a good way to inform people of updates who don't specifically watch this page, and potentially foster new involvement in the project. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd honestly be down to help with the Newsletter. Seems a good way of updating people on developments with the project and with the show. I feel it could potentially be embellished a little from the initial concept, but I'm admittedly not too familiar with how Wikipedia handles individual newsletters like this these days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a list of active newsletters at {{Newsletters}} if you wanted examples on how other WikiProjects handle them. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like something worthwhile, I've been considering proposing something similar, unaware of the existence of the defunct letter Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a newer updated design for it would also be useful. We can definitely start getting something together!

TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We definitely need to trim the active participants list before we get to the point of sending a newsletter out. There was a newsletter recipient list, but given that it hasn't been active since '08 it's out of date. For the first new newsletter we can use the updated participants list, and then give editors the opportunity to opt out of future editions after this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How would we go about trimming the list. By most recent edit presumably? If so is there a applicable bot for it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We should probably trim those who haven't been active in years, for a start, but for active editors who happen to be listed who don't participate anymore, I am uncertain how we'd discern it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For context, by trim I mean shift to a separate "inactive participants" list Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If its checking for those who stopped it would presumably be have to be done manually. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, yes. Obviously some participants are obvious since they're active frequently in WP:DOCTORWHO projects, but it'll take manual sorting for those that aren't obvious. Alternatively, we could keep the iffy cases in there and just leave it and figure it out after the Newsletter is sent out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, each entry has a contribs link. I suggest that we start by checking those, and anybody with nothing at all in the last year can be moved to the new "inactive participants" list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I just trimmed all usernames starting A-K, purely anyone who has been inactive for 12 months or longer. I haven't checked yet for editors who are actually still active within the project. Question though, is it worth keeping a list of editors who are inactive? I can't think of any particular reason why it would be useful for us. Unless someone else has one, I'll just mark it as historical as well. We can keep trimming the main list by just removing those who are inactive altogether rather than moving them to an a separate list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

For those unaware, the lists are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Active participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Inactive participants. The latter was created way back in April-May 2008, but has seen little maintenance since. Other WikiProjects also have inactive participants lists, for example Football, London Transport, Military history and Trains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS possibly applies here to a degree. That other WikiProjects do something is no reason for this one to do the same. I'll note also that in at least one case, their inactive list is bot maintained so doesn't take up a person's time, while we're updating our lists manually. In theory it might be nice to keep a list of historical contributors, but in practice I'm not sure how much it would mean here. Not least because presence on the list does not mean any contribution has necessarily been made (who among us hasn't signed up to at least one thing in life without following through?). At least we're only removing inactive users here and not, as has been the case in the past elsewhere, entire projects and project histories. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick update. I have finished trimming inactive editors from the active list. I went ahead and added and updated the inactive participants for now while we still determine if it's useful. I boldly marked the sympathizer list as historical and merged it with the active/inactive participants. I also marked the former newsletter mailing list as historical and created a new one. I went ahead and added anyone remaining in the active list to the new mailing list. We'll include an option in the new newsletter for people to opt out if they wish. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So now all thats left is writing the thing. I think that it should probably cover the first half of the year given thats when the recent productivity began. Then continue quarterly Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I created a very base design using this newsletter as a base. I'm not too attached to the design, so if anyone else has the time or skill to design something better, please be my guest. The old design just seemed too outdated in my opinion and my Wiki design skills aren't the best. The GOCE seemed to have the best in terms of simplicity, I figured we didn't want to overwhelm people. It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/2024/July if anyone else wants to start adding to it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was also considering if we wanted a new name for it. Space-Time Telegraph is good, but just considering we're revamping everything else, we could change that as well. The Gallifreyan crossed my mind as an option. I'm open to other suggestions too. We can also keep the current name if its the best option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally like the Space-Time telegraph, I would say maybe through in a line in the first issue requesting alternative name sugestions? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I feel Space-Time Telegraph is more than fine but I feel leaving it open is valid as well.

What should we tackle in terms of subject matter? I assume the recent GANs and productivity for a start, as well as the coverage on series 14. Should anything else be covered? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it at Space-Time Telegraph then, just wanted to pitch it. I'd definitely agree in saying that series 14 and the work towards GA's/GT's on both Classic and New Who is something to write about. We could potentially mention the series 14/season 1 RM if that's still ongoing when we send it out. Also the seven points that started this discussion, see if anyone who isn't watching this page wishes to help update the information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel both are good. I do believe 1 has been addressed already, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Do either of you have any specific portions that you want to write of the topics we've discussed (or anything else even)? I can take anything that's left, I just didn't want to take anything anyone else planned on writing given I already wrote the intro. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm down to write any of the sections. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: why don't you write over the proposals that started this discussion since you're the one who originally proposed them? If @OlifanofmrTennant: is interested in writing, perhaps she could write over the GA's since she sparked most of the productivity there? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Are we still covering the move discussion? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's still active when we're ready to send the newsletter. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah alright. I've been pretty busy with some scary stuff recently but I should be able to write it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho I've written a mockup for the section about the proposals. (Which will ironically be very funny given we're linking people to the discussion we discussed the newsletter in lmao). Let me know if you feel it should be altered, since I was admittedly uncertain how to frame these proposals in something like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the two of you for writing your sections! I was hoping to wait a day or two here to see if the series 14 RM gets relisted or closed. I'd really hate to mention it and have it closed two minutes after I send the newsletter. Once that's done I'll send it out promptly. (If there's no official relist/closure by Saturday night, I'll go ahead and add/send it at that time.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sent Went ahead and sent it tonight. Thanks for helping out guys! If we're hoping to send quarterly, this is probably close enough to count as the June edition and we could also get issues out in September and December? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That could work. I'm down. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A question about the newsletter: concerning the entry about "The Star Beast" article, what does being still salty about the move concern? Is it about this move? -- Alex_21_TALK 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A belated reply to the proposals listed at the top of this section...

This point has already been addressed.
Although it would be cool to see further task forces operating under this WikiProject, it seems very unlikely that any further task forces will be created. I support removing the listing, but we should definitely keep a link to the Torchwood task force for easy access.
Agree with removing the freenode channel.
Agree that the book and audio play samples should be changed to better quality articles. Agree that the "sample devices" template should be removed.
The updates infobox seems not a bad idea, but it clutters the Wikipedia:VGCHAR page a lot and looks odd, pushing the regular text down the page. Is there a better way to present the same information?
Yes, we should definitely include the Radio Times references.
Wow, the deletion discussion page was last edited in 2009! It would probably be easier to abandon this deletion discussion altogether.

My suggestions

I think we should include a link on the main page to the newly-regenerated newsletter.
We should also make the signing-up-for-the-project link easier to locate. It seems lost in the lead sentence, surrounded by all those other wikilinks.

Mr Sitcom (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Sitcom Ah, sorry I didn't reply to this until now, I didn't receive a notification of this.

VGCHAR has been updated since this post, and now has shifted the updates to a separate tab. Admittedly I'm not sure about something like that for this WikiProject all things considered, as while I feel the updates are useful and helpful for maintaining articles, I'm honestly not sure of how best to arrange it. Something I didn't notice before is that we do have a recent changes thing similar to them already, but it's not updated to current standards and hidden out of the way. I definitely feel the second paragraph of the "Welcome!" box could be expanded with this information but I'm admittedly not sure how to do so (As I feel we could expand it or make it a seperate box entirely).

I definitely agree on linking the newsletter (especially since this is planned to be an ongoing element) and I agree on making the sign up notice easier to locate. Admittedly not sure on the best method of doing so to make them easily visible to readers, however. Perhaps it could be done alongside the expansion I mentioned above? I'm not entirely sure, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That WGCHAR page looks much better formatted that way! With regards to the recent changes link, I think we should update it to current standards and place it in a separate box near the top of the page, along with a link to the full list of pages, although that page hasn't been updated for some time either – should we invest time in updated that page?

In the "Welcome" box, we can write something like "Click here to sign up to the participants list!", in bold, in a separate paragraph below the introductory text. Perhaps we can list the link to the newsletter under the "Organisation" box... Mr Sitcom (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. At worst it seems more tedious than difficult.

I do feel we could probably put the Newsletter either where the freenode channel currently is, or put it above the associated WikiProjects depending on people's thoughts, with a note to sign up for the newsletter close to it? I do feel putting the sign-up incredibly far away from the organization box may be counterintuitive given the two aspects are associated with each other. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. There are two links in the last sentence of the first part of the infobox; two very-easily missed links that I have a devil of a time finding each time I look for them even though I know they are there! A full list of pages in the WikiProject can be found here and recent changes to these pages can be seen here. (the bolded words are where the links are in the project page, I haven't linked from here). It looks like the former was to a degree manually updated, but presumably there would've been a script to output all the articles tagged as being part of the project? Otherwise as you say it would have been tedious to generate. The latter link appears to be some kind of clever thing that updates the results based on changed to the articles listed in the first list. This means that if we update the list of articles, the list of updates will be generated automatically. I hope someone knows an easy way to get a list of all articles that are tagged as being part of this project. (Apologies if I have at any point misunderstood either the object of something, or how it works) JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have any idea what might be some ideal sample articles for the book and audio drama categories (Suggestion #4)? I've had a quick look, but not any success. Also, has the final point been addressed? Mr Sitcom (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Pokelego999, otherwise this might go unread. :) Mr Sitcom (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Sitcom admittedly not sure, especially since all other articles for those two are in similar states. We could potentially improve Jubilee and Lungbarrow, but I dunno where I'd start or what the breadth of coverage is on those. As for the Archive, probably better off removed. I'll work that out later today. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor

I have only recently stumbled on this spate of disruptive editing that has been taking place for a few days. I'm drawing the wider WikiProject's attention to this issue in the hope that we don't need to take it to DRN or ANI.
Blob02 has been repeatedly making unreferenced and non-MOS-compliant edits to The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. They have been reverted and warned on talk pages (let me know if I have missed any):

Blob02, you have only been here for six days so I wouldn't expect you to have read every single policy and guideline, but the ones you have been consistently breaking are:

Verifiability – A core policy, this means you must provide references for any claims, and format them correctly
No original research – A core policy, this means you do not insert your own interpretations if they are not backed up by reliable secondary sources
Manual of Style – The way we write and lay out our articles to ensure consistency and an encyclopaedic tone. You also need to follow the style advice for:
Doctor Who
TV
Fictional elements (e.g. characters)
Consensus – A core policy, when experienced editors tell you how we do things here, you listen to us and do not repeatedly break the rules

Blob02, I hope that we can resolve this and help you make constructive contributions here, but if you repeatedly show that you are not going to follow the rules and guidelines, then the next step is to consider a community ban. I really don't want to have to go there. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Blob02, User talk:DoctorWhoFan91, User talk:Irltoad, User talk:TheDoctorWho. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

what's the problem? Blob02 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is you are not reading all the resources that have provided to tell you why you are being WP:Disruptive; you keep arguing and making the same edits again and again. We can see you are trying to be helpful, but you are unintentionally wasting other editors' time. WP:OR does not mean something is false, just that no reliable source has been shown to say so; a shift to the supernatural relates to the show, not the character of the Doctor; and so on and so on, as you have been repeatedly told. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Blob02: this edit summary is disappointing. "Team effort" doesn't mean you insert random stuff with citation needed tags and expect others to find the citations. It means you do the work, just as everyone else does the work when they add new content. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Formally reported. I'm sorry it has come to this. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has been checking the recent changes to the articles of this WikiProject for the last few days, I don't think User:Blob02 is going to listen; most of his mainspace edits have been reverted, the same changes again and again, by many-many different editors. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Blob02 has been indef blocked following this report at WP:ANEW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Time Hunter

Hello everyone, I happened to stumble across Category:Time Hunter today, and was wondering what everyone else thinks about it? The Time Hunter series itself is a series of Doctor Who spin-off novellas. I don't know if there's any good reason for this category specifically to exist, especially considering these already exist:

Time Hunter, an article which already lists & links to every specific book that the category lists.
Category:Doctor Who novellas: a category that already lists individual novellas based on Doctor Who, including most if not all novellas in the Time Hunter series
Category:Doctor Who spin-offs: a category listing media associated with Doctor Who (in my opinion, based on what little I know about the Time Hunter series, these should be categorized as spin-offs but currently aren't).
Category:Telos Publishing books: which includes a list of all of the individual books published by the publishing group that published Time Hunter; notably, all of the books published are related to Doctor Who.
Category:Telos_Publishing: a category about everything that Telos Ltd. has published (all related to Doctor Who).
Telos Doctor Who novellas: an article listing all of the Doctor Who novellas that Telos Ltd. has published. This list does not include the Time Hunter series in its list, as this article makes the case that there's a difference between "Doctor Who novellas": novellas published specifically with Doctor Who characters; and "Time Hunter novellas": novellas in the Time Hunter series which include elements and references to Doctor Who, but only feature spin-off characters. (Let me know your opinions on this as well if you'd like).
Lists of books based on Doctor Who: a list including the Telos Doctor Who novellas, but again, not the Time Hunter novellas (although I believe there could be a case to include them).

Anyhow, that's everything I could find! Just based on the amount of categories that already exist that I believe already cover the topic of the Category:Time Hunter, I find it to be a little redundant, but please let me know your thoughts! Thanks :) Garriefisher (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel there's enough for separation from the other categories here, but I feel the Time Hunter series is already dubiously notable as is. We should probably look into the notability of these subjects more extensively. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much at all about the Time Hunter series, but just a general scan through references, sources, articles outside of Wikipedia, etc. leads me to believe that at the very least, the individual articles for each book should be compiled into one page. I can't find any reason for them to be listed separately.

For the Time Hunter article itself, I've only been able to find a few sources:

Telos Publishing Ltd.'s own website, which is non-independent (and currently the most used source in the individual articles)
Worlds Without End, which only includes information about The Cabinet of Light as well as information about Telos Publishing.
The Time Scales, which also only includes information about The Cabinet of Light.
Doctorwhoreviews, an independent review website for plenty of Doctor Who content.
The TARDIS library, which only offers brief blurbs (usually from the books cover jackets) & publishing date.
The books themselves, which I don't have access to & don't want to spend money on at the moment.

Another point is that when searching about the Time Hunter series, there is a more popular young adult book series, The Time Hunters by Carl Ashmore, that pushes results about Telos' Time Hunter series to page 3-4 of results, even in Google Books. That's all I researched for now, but just based on my understanding, I don't believe the individual articles meet WP:GNG & should be reconsidered as either being removed or consolidated into the main Time Hunter series article. Then again, I'm not an expert or anything, this is just simply my understanding.

Garriefisher (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

If the series has so few results, it may be more worthwhile to bundle AfD the entire series. I'll probably do a bit of searching later today though to see if the series can't be verified in some way, but as of right now the individual articles should definitely be killed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of the individual book articles are short and could just be WP:BLARed to the series article. A couple of the individual book articles have more content and I suggest warrant individual consideration and maybe merging content to the series article or to the authors’ articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to replying to this, life is hard. But in terms of importance, if any of the book articles were to be kept, the most important is The Cabinet of Light. It's the only novel in the series that actually directly involves the Doctor & other established Doctor Who characters. The rest of the series is technically a spin-off of The Cabinet of Light. If we feel like TCoL warrants its own article, that makes sense - I personally think just merging the rest into a single article would make a lot of sense if everyone else is good with that? Garriefisher (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Addressing the Bernice Summerfield Situation

Given recent discussions, the Bernice Summerfield article has kind of become an elephant in the room. With so many articles having been dumped into the article in such a short span of time, it's... not really in a good state. And then there's articles like The Adventuress of Henrietta Street or Just War (novel) that can't be merged effectively even though they're just a plot summary and one-two paragraphs of minor dev info because of how badly formatted the main article is. In its current state, the article is unwieldy and not really covering all the information it needs to, and I doubt that can go un-addressed for longer, especially as we downsize more trivial articles. I'd normally tackle it myself once I have time, but I think this is an article outside the scope of what one person can handle, especially given it's covering every piece of Summerfield media to have ever released. This is something I feel needs some kind of group attack in order to finally resolve.

The article needs a more condensed form of covering these books, while also covering information associated with them, such as author information, plot summary, and any development history they have. A character table should likely be implemented to cover the list currently in the article, and the audio stories need a similar treatment to the books, but without COPYVIO plot summaries. This is mostly tedious work, but it needs to be done to ensure the article's quality and readability. Beyond this, I'm not sure what else should be done, but I propose that we try to get at least a few editors on this in order to improve this article for any potential future use. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I kind of noticed that too; I was thinking of tackling it but I have never anything she featured in, so I decided to see if someone else might be more interested. My first suggestion would be split the audios into a different article; that will halve the size, and then start finding the best way to tackle how the BS article can be reorganized (suggestion-probably starting with the characters- I mostly just dumped the info when I merged that into the article, bcs I couldn't differentiate what to keep and what not to). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91 I feel the books would need splitting as well, in that case, but at the same time we'd not be left with much at the main Summerfield article. If we focus on going the split route, we'd need sources to verify the main franchise's notability in the first place, and discuss other aspects of the series beyond listing what is a part of it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, though I'm sure we can expand the article and also verify the franchise's notability- there are sources even for the more obscure Doctor Who content, and despite the EighthDA book and audios having separate articles, the Eighth Doctor article still has data for a huge article. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the Eighth Doctor is heavily lacking in citations, and is additionally not representing an entire franchise of his own accord. Summerfield's article doubling as a franchise article makes it so finding sources will likely prove to be more vital for the article's continued usage than Eight. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

From nominations DW novels to AfD, I have learned that you can put something up for deletion, and some nerd(affectionately) will find enough citations to keep it^[Joke]; more seriously, I am sure we will find citations, I'll look when I get the time(probably a week or two). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)