Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 27 February 2006 and 16 April 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7


French names

Why is this notable? Are we going to put in the Korean names as well? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about Korean names; however, considering such a song-and-dance was made during the Notes for Rose about the series being translated into French (whilst that information could have been put anywhere), I thought it would indeed be interesting to note how the names translate into other languages, French in this case (The Empty Child becoming "Joke of Death", for example). If you are suggesting putting all of the non-English names into the notes anyway, that is a different matter for discussion. :) NP Chilla 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Interesting for Rose, perhaps, but not for every single one. Why is French any more special than anything else? And the fact it has been translated should indeed be in the Doctor Who general article, rather than in Rose — since the classic series was also dubbed in multiple languages. Any others have thoughts on this? --22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
That's actually an extremely interesting point you've raised - does anyone actually know the Korean names? Or German? I imagine it would be perfectly acceptable to have the non-English names in the notes of episodes, providing they where interesting enough to be noteworthy (the afore-mentioned "Joke of Death" being a prime example). NP Chilla 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Khaosworks. I don't see any point in mentioning foreign versions of a name, unless it's particularly amusing or noteworthy. I certainly wouldn't do it as a matter of course in every episode. The place for a proper list of French episode names is French Wikipedia, not here. And yes, Rose's translation note should be in the main Doctor Who article under series 1. --KJBracey 09:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds a fair compromise - interesting/amusing foreign names are included, and literal translations are ignored. Works for me! NP Chilla 19:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who Chronology

Doctor Who Chronology. Original research? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 09:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It's certainly in danger of veering towards POV - the production codes the new series, for example, are entirely made up, and when it comes to including various "missing" adventures in, there is not always a definitively "correct" position. (The page title needs to be changed too.) —Whouk (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting and evidently a lot of work has gone in to it over a short space of time, but there's clear POV I'm afraid. Litefoot 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
There's definite POV in splitting the Big Finish adventures into "seasons" and why not include the books as well? Looks like an attempt to do a condensed version of I recommend removing the season splits for the Big Finish adventures. 23skidoo 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the question really is whether there's any way to salvage it in any shape manner or form or does this have to go to AfD? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 15:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I wish we'd noticed it sooner, and could have worked together to see if it could be made into something that follows Wikipedia's guidelines. As for the Big Finish seasons, the Paul McGann stories up to The Next Life were released that way (in "seasons"), but the rest are made up.
It is a shame, though, since there are certainly Wikipedia readers who might like to know how the novels and audios "fit in" with the television series. I don't know whether we can have such a page here without it being OR, but we could point people to the Doctor Who Reference Guide, the Canon-Keeper's Guide at OG, and The Doctor's Biography (still in development) at the Whoniverse. A quick glance at how each of these handle the various continuities of the Eighth Doctor shows the difficulty of coming up with a version here that's not OR.
I think that we can have an article on this subject, but it can't be a full list — we can only point readers to the existing lists of television serials, Big Finish audios, New Adventures, etc., and to notable fan efforts to tie them all into "the Complete History of the Doctor". A Doctor Who chronology article could include both this and discussion of things like Lance Parkin's AHistory as well. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So what do we do with it? Rewrite it? Josiah, can you maybe drop a note to the editors contributing to the article explaining our concerns? There's Coreman and an anon (whom I think are the same person). --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've written notes to both contributors, and copied most of the (longer) note from User talk:Coreman to Talk:Doctor Who Chronology. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I came along and fleshed the thing out after it had been started, cleaning things up and adding some stuff I already had typed up on my hard drive. I see the problems, in retrospect. Though I'm not the one who started the article, as far as I'm concerned you can do whatever with it. To note, though, the season definitions aren't really original; I've seen them used elsewhere as-such (heck, as I said, they were basically that way when I got to the article; they weren't original for him, either), and beyond that they reflect Big Finish's organization and numbering schemes. Maybe in the future, there can be an element to the audio range pages that explains how they're intended to fit into the TV chronology. It is a pretty exact science, if you go by the production codes (and what is explicitly stated on the BF homepage).
As for the ninth/tenth production codes: I'm aware that's all bollocks. I didn't see it my place to change that, though, so I just clarified the logic that was originally posted. The sooner that's done away with, the better. --Aderack 11:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
A postnote, after having read the talk page: issues aside about the seasons and other more clearly dodgy areas, I'm unclear on how it is that compiling readily available information -- like the production code -- into one place constitutes "original research". Isn't that exactly the purpose of Wikipedia? Indeed, any encyclopedia?--Aderack
Established production codes are fine (and indeed, the List of Doctor Who serials does this: it's the made-up production codes, plus, the arbitrary arrangement of those codes in a particular order which is the original research. This is out of whole cloth, not from any particular source. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 11:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I assume on the latter point you're talking about the season breaks, as the actual continuity order of the episodes is a facet of the production codes (and is stated on the Big Finish website). Fair enough on the seasons; the BF codes issue is what perplexes me, from the phrasing used earlier. --Aderack 12:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the BF codes imply certain placements. We're not saying the whole article is bad, though - just that it has some problematic elements. That's why we're talking about trying to see if we can salvage it rather than delete it outright. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 14:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Generally it's the less probamatical elements that strike me as the most useful or interesting anyway, so that works out rather well. If the original author of the page is amenable, I'm all for the page move and related alterations. Note, though, that although the season names as given are to some extent "original", the way the audios are broken up, as documented here, is quite intentional on Big Finish's end. (As I mention below, some of it this is made clear as day by the production codes alone.) I was surprised, in retrospect, how well they've organized everything -- considering that the releases seem so haphazard, from one to the next.
The question, then, is how to label the different "runs" of epiosodes, so to distinguish them from each other. That's the one issue which still borders on original research, yet seems close to essential for the purposes of the article. The best solution I can find is to seek out how other people are dealing with it. Though I can't name a source offhand, the "a, b" season structure is what I'm used to seeing. And It's natural enough a template, following as it does the "6a" season theory. I mean, the bulk of Davison's audios are set in a very specific gap between seasons 19 and 20. So what do you call that? --Aderack 10:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wait. Here's one pseudo-reference. Most recently, there's that guy who was making DVD cases for the Big Finish "seasons", who had a very similar organizational structure. Though he made some rather arbitrary decisions of his own, that conflict with some of the obvious and established intentions of the audios, like the Paul McGann season numbering and whatnot. Everyone seems to have a slightly different take on how to organize things. So did the original author of the page. The current organization is probably the most neutral I've encountered. It's just data, with extrapolated names (that, again, can be changed to whatever else might be more appropriate). --Aderack 10:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the BF production codes, and that most BF audios do mention in their liner notes where they're set, can we justify a TV-and-audio only list? I had assumed that the Doctor Who Chronology page was intending to include the novels, which can't really be done without original research, but maybe if we frame the list in terms of how the audios are intended by their publisher to fit into the TV series' narrative it wouldn't be OR. (The only problem then would be the "side-step" stories — does Hex come before or after Benny?) The page might have to be moved to something like Chronology of Big Finish Doctor Who releases, but that might be a way to keep it. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 14:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable spin. In that event you might even trim it down to the fifth through eighth Doctor ranges, as there are no audios that take place before Davison's era.
As for the Benny stuff, if it's not simply a parallel thread then it's set after the Hex stuff. As the production codes suggest, there's a clear line (and some vague continuity, even) going from the end of season 26 through the early Ace-and-Doctor stories up to where they pick up Hex. Then when they pick up Hex, it diverges into another direction. You notice as soon as he comes on board suddenly the codes go WA, WB, WC, etc. So that's another hunk of something that follows what's come before, though is clearly its own little sub-series.
To contrast, the Benny stuff is all set after Ace has already grown up a little. And again, the production codes list those adventures under the "SS" banner -- the same label they give the Frobisher stuff and whatnot. This signifies that it's a special release based on one of the spin-offs rather than directly on the TV series. So you can pretty safely put the Benny stuff to the side altogether, if you wish -- though again, there is a slot for them after the Ace and Hex material. --Aderack 03:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well. If nobody objects, I can fiddle with the article a little to reflect what we've been talking about; then we can see how it looks from there.--Aderack 12:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Following from Aderack (talk · contribs)'s revamp, I've moved the page to Big Finish Doctor Who chronology (sorry, Josiah, your title was a little cumbersome). Anyone got a better title? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Big Finish Doctor Who chronology sounds good to me. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who Broadcasters

It may well be a gargantuan effort — and probably a complete waste of time — but I've started a list of Doctor Who broadcasters at this temp page here. Anybody feel like lending a hand? It's going to requite quite a bit of effort, but I thought it'd be preferable to try and get a proper page together than just a random listing like we have in the Viewership section of the main article.

Any assistance very welcome, anyway! Angmering 18:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Just one suggestion Angmering: use rowspans when a country has more than one channel broadcasting Doctor Who.

"The Sincerest Form of Flattery"

You may remember that, back in the sands of time, we had a bit of a discussion about whether to write out story names like "this", or like this; and the latter won out? Well, it looks like our pals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy are following our example and have started to write out their titles in the same fashion. How incredibly flattering! <blushes>

I think that this is a sign that, if nothing else, we really are doing something right. NP Chilla 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Finish release dates

I have noticed that the articles on the Big Finish audios don’t provide release date information. Is there a general consensus that this info is to trivial to include? If not, can anyone suggest a non-intrusive way to include these dates into the format? Justin Foote 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've thought for some time that the BF audios need an infobox. Release dates could go there. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just created Template:Bigfinishbox; a sample can be seen at The Sandman. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! I have filled in the length section in a sort of digital counter format. See what you think. Justin Foote 21:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Made a alteration so it's immediately more apparent what the timing is. So, you want to do the box for the others? :) --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a good idea too me. Just out of curiosity, where did you get the exact date? The official Big Finish site and the resource I usually use, Outpost Gallifrey, only provide month and year, so maybe we could get by with that?
It's taken directly from the Big Finish website [1]. I was working off that rather than my own copies since I was in the office, that's why I didn't put in the timing. I notice now that they put in exact dates for some (the earlier ones) but not others, so I guess we put in the date provided, whether exact or not. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 01:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can people help with the infoboxes? If one guy takes care of one Doctor, it should go faster. If you need help calculating the running times, you can find a time math calculator here. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The total times for each audio can also be found on their pages at The Tertiary Console Room. In fact, it even has it down to the nearest second; do we want to include that, or round to the nearest minute? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll start with do the rest of the Fifth Doctor audios... —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, before I get too far in this, does it make sense to add a "set between" field to this box? If we can justify Big Finish Doctor Who chronology, we can justify saying that Red Dawn is set between Planet of Fire and The Eye of the Scorpion. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll do the Sixth Doctor if Josiah is doing the fifth. Set between sounds a good idea Tim | meep in my general direction 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a "set_between" field, and will add the appropriate info to the Fifth Doctor audio pages which already have the box. (I'll leave "Sirens of Time" for later, though!) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As I add the infoboxes to pages like Loups-Garoux, I'm noticing that I'm eliminating one piece of information: who did the cover art. (It used to be in the caption.) Is that OK? Do we want to have a "cover art" field as well, or should the cover artist be mentioned in the "notes" section? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the best place would be the image description page? Tim | meep in my general direction 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's already there. If people think that's sufficient, then that's OK. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done some Eighth Doctor ones. Should the series name be italicised for Doctor Who, Sapphire & Steel, etc.? And not for Sarah Jane Smith, Bernice Summerfield? —Whouk (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess that makes sense. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - I realise that Big Finish isn't consistent in whether or not they have slashes in the production codes, i.e. 7C/A or 7CPRE-A, but for consistency's sake, I think we should decide on one or the other. Personally, I'd leave the slashes out, for completely arbitrary reasons. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Another question: what's our policy on upcoming Big Finish releases? For example, Paul Cornell has said that the upcoming Circular Time will feature the Fifth Doctor and Nyssa, and Big Finish's website gives it the production code 6CH; should The Game be listed as being set between Creatures of Beauty and Circular Time, or should we wait for the story's release? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And another question — does anybody know offhand when Jac Rayner stopped being listed as executive producer on the Big Finish audios? Or do I have to go through all those liner notes to find out? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Found this one (and I did have to look through liner notes) — she's listed in The Next Life (#64), but not in The Juggernauts (#65). I'm guessing that it has to do with the Doctor Who office in Wales taking charge of things — but it's curious that Helen Raynor or someone doesn't get the credit. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Correction: she's listed in The Juggernauts, but not in The Game (#65). Dunno how I made that mistake. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the Sixth Doctor's audio dramas, bar the following if anyone would be so kind: Thicker than Water needs producers and length, Cryptobiosis needs length. Also if anyone knows where Thicker than Water fits in Mel's continuity, please add I have put the set between for Evelyn. Currently Real Time has a standard serial box rather than the new big finish box, shall we change it over? Tim | meep in my general direction 08:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should, and have, although I wasn't sure about the numbering. —Whouk (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we done with the infoboxes for existing pages? If so, I'll start making the pages for Pier Pressure and Night Thoughts... —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. I think we're mostly done, except for the Unbounds. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 15:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Original Content appearing in Doctor Who (2005-)

Look, we're all fans here, but this is really crossing into fancruft territory. We already make references to where stuff comes from in the notes of the articles; do we really need some kind of central repository? Who honestly cares that much? And will they even think to look? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 05:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it for AfD. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that. Looks like the person who created the article has even voted for its deletion so I don't think it'll be a problem. 23skidoo 12:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:!doctor-who boxes to include Torchwood

You know how we've put Totally Doctor Who up on the Big Doctor Who Box of Death? Well, why not put Torchwood up there as well? I mean, it is meatier than Totally, and it is certainly interesting. And let's not forget - the more exposure, the better! NP Chilla 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the box should have another light-blue section, titled "Related programmes" or some such? That could include Doctor Who Confidential, Totally Doctor Who and Torchwood. But would it also have to have K-9 and Company? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... yes, that is a good idea! And I think that we would have to include K-9 and Company somewhere, for completion's sake. NP Chilla 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the box could use some reorganization anyway. Why is "theme music" on the first line, ahead of serials and missing episodes? Seems a little odd.--Aderack 11:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've put another draft up at Template talk:Doctor-who. —Whouk (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant. It looks absolutely smashing, and I'm very impressed that someone had the bright idea of putting Cyberman on as well. NP Chilla 17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In light of recent additions to's Doctor Who fold (ie. TARDISODES and the new official tie-in websites), is it worth adding these to the box as well? NP Chilla 16:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and heads up

Just in case you hadn't noticed: TARDIS is now Today's featured article on the Main Page. Congratulations to all Project members who have worked on the article and brought it to its current, excellent condition. Of course, being on the front page does mean that the article will probably attract more than its usual share of vandals today. The recent changes patrollers are usually good about taking care of this, but we should keep an eye on it as well. (Some vandals may also target pages linked from TARDIS, which we might be more likely to catch.)

This Featured Article Medal is awarded to WikiProject Doctor Who, for bringing several articles related to Doctor Who to Featured Article status.

While I'm thinking about it, I think the WikiProject as a whole deserves this:

Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image stuff

A notice to all: I've changed some instances of Image:Drwhostub-02.JPG to Image:Earls_Court_Police_Box.jpg because I think it's more illustrative of the TARDIS in my opinion. Thank Mindspillage for the idea. [2].--Sean Black (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, upon reflection, I suppose I should have left a note here first :). But whatever, I'm cool with it.--Sean Black (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
As I pointed out on Sean's talk page, the Earl's Court police box has that ugly CCTV attachment on the top and so doesn't really resemble a TARDIS at all. The other picture is closer. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 03:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Format for Technical and scientific errors?

Is there a standard format in the episode articles about technical and scientific errors? I think these are worth noting because Doctor Who was originally sold as a semi-educational series, and aired on PBS in America as a result of this. I seem to recall a few with headlines, but I can't find them now. Perhaps they have moved to the notes section - but notes usually are about the production details. Some examples of what I have in mind:

Castrovalva: "Galaxy" is used in place of "Universe" in all cases. The creation of a galaxy is believed to be a quiet tranquil affair.
The Green Death: The Doctor mispronounces chitenous when describing the maggot's shells.
The Twin Dilemma: There is no reason why moving a small planet closer to the sun would make it unstable, and it takes far more then the mass of three terrestrial planets to make a star go supernova. Algr 05:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to get too exacting (i.e. the Doctor saying "chitenous" the wrong way. Maybe it's an accent thing - I don't think anyone really cares about that). As far as the show being educational, I do believe that idea was pretty much dropped after the first few weeks -- certainly once the Daleks showed up. You'd probably be able to find errors in every Doctor Who episode thereafter and that would be very cumbersome. Maybe if there's some sort of major error it can be noted in the "Notes" section of the episode articles, but if you can accept the notion of "bigger on the inside" then, really, you can accept that in the Doctor Who universe a planet can make a sun go nova. 23skidoo 06:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course any Sci Fi program is going to have elements beyond real science, such as the Tardis interior. People's common sense can be relied on to know that that is fantisy. But when real events and objects like galaxies are discussed there is no longer a clear line between what is real information and what isn't. It would be like casually mentioning Jimmy Carter's second term in office or Hitler's spy satellites. So you might have people thinking that galaxies have explosive origins, or that galaxies aren't real and only come from Doctor Who.
The educational aspect of Doctor Who is a real part of its history. The idea was that it would alternate between teaching history, (pure historicals like Marco Polo) and science in the Sci fi stories. (Eg. in the Dalek invasion of Earth, the Doctor performs a science experiment to get out of the cell, and explains the physics involved.) Until the 1980s, it was quite rare for the program to name catch some real science issue and then botch how it was handled. (That is why the Castrovalva error stood out.) And I was talking about the Tom Baker era that was sold to PBS on the basis of being pro-science. Algr 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the question here is whether or not we need a special section in the articles to deal with this, or whether every little scientific absurdity or error needs to be dealt with or just the more egregious ones, and I think the answer is no, we don't need a special section and yes, only the more way-out ones should be noted... and in the notes section, like what has been done with the galaxy bit in Castovalva. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sample articles

Should we add sample articles for the books and audios to the sample section on the main project page? Angmering 15:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

By your command. Wait, no, wrong programme... --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Mwahahahha. Feel my power. Actually, I was surprised after following the category link there that we only have three New Adventures articles. I'd somehow imagined we had more than that, but I suppose only a certain percentage of them have enough of note to deserve individual articles. Angmering 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Finish images

Is it OK to borrow the cover images from the Big Finish website, or do we need to scan our own copies? (If it's the latter, someone else will have to do it for Pier Pressure and Night Thoughts, 'cause I don't have a scanner.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll scan them. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 16:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Ta. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've put infoboxes on the Doctor Who Unbound pages, but they need cover images as well. No rush, but whenever somebody gets around to it. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not Doctor Who, but I figure someone here can probably get hold of a scan of the cover of The Adventures of Luther Arkwright too... —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Do any of the articles discuss the various logos the series has had over the years? I think there might be some worthwhile discussion with such a page, with the 1996 movie borrowing Pertwee's logo, the controversy over the new "lozenge" logo, and now the Sci-Fi Channel is using a brand new logo for its promotions which looks like a cross between Pertwee's logo and the logo from the Man From UNCLE. 23skidoo 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether anyone has enough reference material to say anything meaningful about it without just a contextless recitation of "it changed to this, and then to this, and then to this...", I suppose --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in a discussion of the title sequences, perhaps i.e. how the sequences were created, etc.? It is interesting that Sci-Fi Channel is not only claiming Doctor Who as one of its own original series, but have created their own logo for the show in lieu of the one actually used. I'm not in the US so I won't be seeing the broadcast on Friday but it'll be interesting to see if anything is changed on the show when it airs. 23skidoo 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The Sci-Fi channel appears to be using the 2005 "lozenge" logo on their site as of right now. [3] --Goobergunch|? 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean they'd replaced it altogether, but if you see the Sci-Fi Channel trailers for the show (they're making the rounds on the Internet) they're not using that logo at all. Instead it's a logo that actually more closely resembles the Troughton-era logo than Pertwee's (my mistake there). And there's a silhouette of the Doctor standing within the O which makes it look like the Man from UNCLE. I actually like it a lot more than the lozenge logo. 23skidoo 14:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

US Sci Fi Channel airing

Did anybody in the US see how Sci Fi fit Rose and The End of the World into one-hour timeslots? At the moment, Doctor Who in America just says what was speculated. I missed it on Friday, but should be able to catch it Sunday. In the meantime, I'm curious. --Christopherlin 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm presuming you mean 1 hour each, but as I don't live in America I don't know myself. Does Sci Fi have adverts, becuase I'm sure they'd be able to have 15 mins of adverts.--Bjwebb (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, one hour each. Sci Fi (and most TV in the US) has commercial breaks. With anything that doesn't have act breaks written/filmed in, there are awkward fade-to-black moments. --Christopherlin 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the ratings for the American debut yet? If they are particularly impressive, we should put them into Doctor Who in America as well. NP Chilla 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
They should go in there regardless of whether they're impressive or not, I'd've thought. —Whouk (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in Canada but followed along with the TrekBBS running discussion thread (reaction to the new show was mixed at best, with some folks loving it and others calling it garbage). The impression I got was the two episodes were edited together, and there were some scenes cut, most regretably Cassandra's introduction to the Britney Spears song. Apparently there were a ton of commercial breaks, suggesting Sci-Fi paid a ton of money to show it. In terms of ratings we should hear initial overnights pretty soon, although it should be noted that the Sci-Fi Channel is not considered a major network so its ratings don't get the same press NBC, CBS, ABC or Fox do. 23skidoo 23:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Darn. I was wondering whether they would edit them together, as the end of Rose makes a nice segue into The End of the World, what with Rose running into the TARDIS. Oh, and I like how has a picture from the wrong episode for Bad Wolf: --Christopherlin 05:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
My favo(u)rite was the ad for The Unquiet Dead: "The year: 1869. The place: England." I suppose they figured most American viewers wouldn't know where Wales was... —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk about living up to the Delta and the Bannermen stereotype :-) —Whouk (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Or down to it, as the case may be... —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they weren't edited together as-such. All they did was lop off the credits to Rose and run them, scrunched, in the bottom tenth of the screen under the recap at the beginning of End of the World. If the commercials were overly plentiful (and they were), at least the breaks tended to be pretty well-chosen (as they were in episode three, tonight). If anything, the breaks sometimes helped the pacing and allowed for some interesting fade-ins like the beginning of the scene where the Moxx is speaking to Boe, bringing a lot more attention to the "Bad Wolf" reference than in the original broadcast. — Aderack 07:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Still, however poorly it was done, it was edited together. Everything from when Mickey runs out of the TARDIS and collapses into a "useless lump" at Rose's feet until just prior to when Rose places her feet cautiously in the snow of Victorian Swansea-cum-Cardiff, was in one continuous block. Including, awkwardly, the recap of "Rose" which, obviously, had just been seen by the viewer. CzechOut 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Also of note is that these tapes appear to be from Canada (in that the CBC is credited at the end). This would explain why they showed the wrong edit of Rose -- which was actually the early, "leaked" edit, with the dodgier sound mix and whatnot, rather than the version that aired in the UK. Maybe someone could make a list of the trims? In Unquiet Dead they got rid of the bit of TARDIS dialog before Rose steps out into the snow. I actually think this cut helps the pacing a little, as cute as the scene was. —Aderack 07:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The CBC is credited at the end of the program, as aired in the UK, isn't it? I'm assuming that based on the statement that the NA and UK DVD releases are now "exactly the same", and that the CBC credit is on the DVD cuts. CzechOut 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
One other item of potential curiosity is just how heavily Sci-Fi has been promoting the series. Before the premiere, there were along the lines of a dozen different ads produced (some only subtly so). --Aderack 07:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Most were subtly different from each other. And "subtle" here is an overstatement; "Imperceptibly different to the casual viewer" might be more accurate. It definitely wasn't a case of there being all the obviously different teasers and trailers as was experienced in Britain. Really we're talking two main pre-launch trailers. CzechOut 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Combined with the "new" logo, the new trailers running for each additional episode, the favored timeslot itself, and the claims of the series being a "Sci-Fi Original" (which is kind of a badge of honor, in the sense that it means they're putting it on as high a level as anything shown on the network), and the overall push has been pretty impressive. No one can accuse 'em of letting the series sink quietly into this good night. --Aderack 07:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, yeah, I can. I monitored this fairly carefully at the time. First of all, they haven't spent any money that I could see advertising the thing outside of their own resources. Not even something that would be doable, like broadcasting a commercial on a sister network, like USA. So you'd have to be tuned into SciFi already to see a commercial for it. Given that the 24-hour average number of hourly viewers is less than 500,000 people—and that their nightly prime time viewership averages out to be a little under a million viewers per hour—those ads aren't really hitting that many unique eyeballs. On their website, they briefly gave DW a little pride of place on or about the last weekend of February 2006, where it was possible to view the first trailer directly from the site's home page. But that disappeared within something less than 48 hours, and then it was impossible, as far as I could figure out, to reach the DW pages directly from the home page. The main thrust of their internet presence rapidly became the push for their own programs' finales on March 7. On that Saturday, the 8th, then and only then did it become easy to get to related DW pages on the site from the main page. And then, too, the advertising push on the channel became much more concentrated, with DW and Ghost Hunters assuming their place in heavy ad rotation. Even given the comparatively smaller size of the SciFi channel versus BBC One, the whole style and vibe of the DW launch has had nothing in common with the the way in which it was launched in Britain, with all of its multiple teasers and trailers and billboard ads and magazine placement and commercials on "mainstream" programming. You really had to already be on the SciFi Channel, and be there at the right time to even know that DW existed. The interesting thing in the American experience, AFAIAK, is the extent to which it's being reviewed by even small media outlets, and the degree to which those reviews have been favorable. Honestly, that's the "advertising" that's penetrating to the "mainstream". CzechOut 17:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Still no word on ratings. If this were Star Trek we'd have had every percentage point analysed on the BBS boards by now... 23skidoo 20:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are those very ratings - [4]
Apparantly these are impressive figures in America... but I wouldn't know. NP Chilla 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The numbers translate to about 1.5-1.8 million viewers which for the Sci-Fi channel are good numbers since it is a specialty cable network. The numbers aren't as high as Battlestar Galactica and Stargate (both of which usually inhabit the Friday timeslot but have now concluded their seasons), but are still OK. Of note is the fact the second episode actually scored a higher rating than the first, which is unusual for a two-part broadcast (usually it's the other way around). 23skidoo 19:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Auton Trilogy

If an article were to be written about the BBV Auton Trilogy, should it be restricted to one blanket article or should there be an article for each video? Justin Foote 22:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably a blanket article, unless there's substantial material to warrant 3. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Would it make sense to start out with a section at Auton first, and then spin it off to its own article if there's enough material? Right now there's only the one sentence and the standard canon disclaimer. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I’m sure there is enough material for an article of its own. I think the wisest approach would be to start with a blanket article, then spin it off to three separate articles if there is enough. Justin Foote 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I'd rather see the main Auton article cover all appearances of the Autons, including Spearhead, Terror of, and Rose in addition to the BBV productions. If a separate article on the BBVs is created, I recommend it include a statement explaining that these aren't fan films. There's a difference between the BBV productions, which are independent films featuring officially licenced characters, and the Star Trek fan films that, despite ever-growing involvement from actual Trek cast and crew, are still considered fan films. I think I'm making sense (it's been a long day ;-) ) 23skidoo 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The Auton trilogy article has been started. Justin Foote 22:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who for download

I suppose this is still too future-ish to make it into any of our articles, but thought y'all might be interested in this BBC news story which uses Doctor Who as the example of BBC programming which may be available for download soon. It sounds like it'll be restricted with lots of DRM, and possibly only available in the UK (at least at the beginning — in the video linked from the article, the BBC's new media guy hints that overseas customers may be able to pay for downloads at some stage). But I guess we're getting closer to being able to download Doctor Who onto our computers (legally). —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's quite pleasing how every time there's a news story about new TV technology or about BBC programmes in general, they use an image from Doctor Who. —Whouk (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who Hugo nominations

The new series has just been nominated for 3 Hugo Awards [5]. The only other TV episode that has been nominated is an instalment of Battlestar Galactica. Also nominated in the controversial Short Form category - which two years ago honored an acceptance speech over episodes of Enterprise and Firefly - is a Pixar animated short, another short film, and the previous year's Hugo Awards ceremony broadcast. I'm not sure the best place to put this so I'll let others decide. 23skidoo 16:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the nominations under the "Awards" section of the main article, and if one of the episodes wins (which will be, of course, The Doctor Dances), then that should also be put in the same place. After all, from what I've gathered, Hugo awards are BIG business. NP Chilla 18:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I lost all respect for them when they gave Gollum's acceptance speech at the MTV Movie Awards the Best Short Form Hugo instead of nominated episodes from Galactica, Firefly and Enterprise (I've heard it might have been some sort of protest vote against the state of SF on TV ... but I thought there was a law that everyone was supposed to rave about Firefly and Galactica?). That said, the Hugos are still considered the Oscars of the SF industry; the next awards to look for are the Saturn Awards, which are also gaining prominence. 23skidoo 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Gollum's speech was actually competing against Buffy, Firefly (x2) and Smallville. No Galactica or Enterprise was involved (except inasmuch as they failed to be nominated). . The Hugos and the Nebulas are the two biggest awards, I'd say--Hugos are voted by the fans, Nebulas by the writers. The Saturns (film / television awards) are indeed gaining prominence, but aren't quite as old as the other two.

Anyway. This Hugo ballot will be bizarre. Usually they're limited to 5 nominees but I guess there was a 3-way tie for fifth place so there are 7. Claudia 05:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected - but still, my point stands that Buffy, Firefly, and Smallville were critics' darlings with strong fanbases, and for the award to go to Gollum was seen as quite the insult. And it has had the backlash that a lot of people are now going "who cares?" with regards to the Doctor Who nominations. The Hugos shouldn't have even nominated Gollum, just as they shouldn't have nominated the awards show this year. Odds are Gollum won because of a vote-split involving Firefly, just as the three Doctor Whos and BSG could cancel each other out and allow the awards show to win this year (or the Jack-Jack Attack animated short). The Hugos had no business nominating TV dramas in the same category as joke productions. If either of those win and Doctor Who or BSG lose, expect to see a major revamping of the categories next year.23skidoo 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Does this artical really need to exist? Most of what's already in there is either in City of Death or under Scaroth anyway. Would a merger/deletion be appropriate? NP Chilla 22:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, forget I said anything - no sooner had I typed this, than it disappeared (which is more than a little efficient!). Sorry about the white elephant chase...! NP Chilla 22:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


It'll take me a couple days to finish this, but I've started adding notes regarding the novelizations to the individual serial articles. I think it's a legitimate addition to the trivia. 23skidoo 07:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed, but please spell it novelisations. :) --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, I know! ;) (although I wonder if it should be novelization for the Fox film?). Anyway, it's all done now, and along the way I also created an article for Shakedown: Return of the Sontarans. 23skidoo 18:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well done! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 20:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I also made a list of Target Books' Doctor Who novelisations for anyone interested. Tim (meep) 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, but the lead needs more work, or else it risks being deleted as simply being a list. Oh, and the apostrophe's a bit awkward - should it be List of Doctor Who novelisations by Target Books (like List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish)? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I was also considering moving to a more straight-forward List of Doctor Who novelisations so that it could also include the Power and Evil of the Daleks and the Paradise of Death which came after the Virgin take-over. Tim (meep) 17:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I decided to go with this. I don't know much about the pre-Target novelisations and it would be nice if anyone could add some info about them :-) Tim (meep) 17:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The Doctor Who Reference Guide page has detailed publishing info for the pre-Targets (Daleks, Crusaders, Zarbi) [6] . Although Power and Evil of the Daleks and Paradise of Death were published after the Virgin take over they still carried the Target branding on their title pages; Ghosts of N-Space was published under Virgin's banner... 23skidoo 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Pop fact: On Target, the novelisations website linked at the bottom of the list, is by far the most visited of all the site on the Leeds uni personal web server. There, isn't that interesting :-) —Whouk (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

More nominations

The new series has received two Viewer's Choice nominations in the Canadian Space Channel's "Spacey" awards. Visitors to this site can vote for Doctor Who in the category of Favourite Series and for Rose Tyler in the category of Favourite New TV Character. 23skidoo 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Broadcast dates

I added dates to the Series 2 episode pages, based on the April 15 date for New Earth. However, I haven't changed the text about "Spring 2006" in the opening paragraphs, in part because I wasn't sure whether to say that the later dates were confirmed by DWM (are they?) and in part because after I finished adding the dates, I remembered RTD's comment about how the episode order may change. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When the first series was airing, I was very careful to create the episode articles only when the Radio Times listings came out, so it was a slow progression that ensured that the dates/times were absolutely accurate. Obviously this year the situation is different since people wanted to create the articles ahead of time. I would still hesitate to put definitive dates until the listings come out because I'm cautious that way, but I leave it to others to decide what is the preferred solution. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 05:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps adding "(tbc)" after those for which dates aren't yet certain? —Whouk (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Cast section in serials

I noticed that several of these sections are a bit messy, and we need to agree how best to format them. Currently, we have the role followed by a dash followed by the actor's name. The dashes are a mixture of mdashes ndashes and hyphens. If this is the chosen format we should choose which dash to use. Alternatively we could tabulate the cast. I have done this to the cast section on The Twin Dilemma, but somehow it looks a bit weedy. Opinions please! Tim (meep) 21:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the table; if we're to decide on a standard, I'll place my preference for the mdash (—). --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also favour a simple text listing. I find hyphens easier to type, but any single standard should be fine. Radagast 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think mdashes are the most grammatically and typographically sound. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I put mdashes in at Attack of the Cybermen and ndashes in at Vengeance on Varos. Ndashes look nicest to my eye. Tim (meep) 19:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, although there's not much to choose between them. The one thing going for the hyphen is that it's actually on the keyboard...
We should specify, whichever we settle on, that there should be a space either side of the dash too. —Whouk (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Does Windows still not have a keyboard shortcut for en dashes and em dashes? I thought they'd finally caught up with Macs on that score. (Macintoshes, of course, have had – and — available at "option-hyphen" and "shift-option-hyphen" since 1984.)
Wikipedia's article on dashes seems to suggest that their use in lists is discouraged, but this page from the authors of the Chicago Book of Style allows for the use of the em dash as a bullet point in lists, which I suppose is close enough. WikiProject Films tends to use hyphens, but that's probably more from ease of typing than from a deliberate typographic choice. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) says not to use dashes for definitions, but doesn't say anything one way or the other about lists. In short, we can probably justify whatever choice we want, except for tables (since we'd have only two columns — Wikipedia:How to use tables discourages this).
I agree that the en dash looks good — the only problem I have with it is that I was taught to read an en dash as "to", as in "1963–1989". But I doubt most readers will have my dash hangups (brought on by growing up in a newspaper family)... —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Both em and en dash are on the tool bar below the save page, show preview and show changes buttons between ə and … I dont think there is a windows shortcut, but MS Word does automatically susbtitute a hyphen for a dash when typing (not sure if em or en). Tim (meep) 16:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh there is a shortcut which is hold down alt and key 0150 on the keyboard's numberpad, but that doesn't seem particulalrly short :-> Tim (meep) 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the suggestion to the details of the episode format on the WikiProject page. One further issue, as we are now listing the cast I think it would be better to link to the BBC episode page for each serial rather than the cast i.e. Episode guide to An Unearthly Child at the BBC ... instead of cast and crew .... Tim (meep) 08:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Video vs. film

I just picked up the "The Beginning" DVD which contained the first DVD releases of Unearthly Child/Daleks/Edge of Destruction. I was quite surprised to discover that the DVD releases of these serials use the original videotape elements. The previous VHS releases of these shows, plus the versions aired on PBS and YTV Canada, had been transferred to film (I assume kinescope or a similar format). I'm not quite sure where to note this, but it's worth mentioning somewhere. The old serials actually look rather striking in clear video as opposed to the slightly fuzzy film of years past. 23skidoo 03:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

They are the film recordings — the videotapes were destroyed in the 1960s, and not a single one exists until episode one of The Ambassadors of Death — but during the restoration they have been treated with the VidFIRE process, which re-creates the missing fields telerecording onto film removes from the picture, restoring the fluid "video look". Every black and white DVD release with the exception of The Tomb of the Cybermen has also been treated with the same process (bar one episode on Lost in Time, which was too damaged to be worth doing it as it wouldn't look effective). Angmering 06:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case I wish they'd stuck with the original film. It's sorta like colorization in this regard - a computer alteration of an original. I'm afraid my opinion of the DVD set just plummeted. 23skidoo 14:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
But if I have this correctly, the original wasn't in film - it was kept on videotape, so in effect VidFIRE is restoring it to close to what it looked like when broadcast on UK television. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 15:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole point is that it restores the picture to far closer to what it would have looked like on original UK transmission. It's not a computer alteration of an original — it's a computer alteration of a sub-standard copy to get it looking something close to the original. Which has to be a good thing, surely? Angmering 17:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


I think Doctor Who incidental music is not very well represented at the moment. I have been compiling a list of composers and set this out below. As far as I can see, this is a complete list of all Doctor Who composers (apart from where existing works were used (examples: Stock music used in the 1960s; Pink Floyd track used in Spearhead From Space; Keff McCulloch's cover versions)).

Ron Grainer Delia Derbyshire Norman Kay Tristram Cary Dudley Simpson Stanley Myers Carey Blyton Richard Rodney Bennett Francis Chagrin Raymond Jones Humphrey Searle BBC Radiophonic Workshop Don Harper Malcolm Clarke Geoffrey Burgon Peter Howell Paddy Kingsland Roger Limb Jonathan Gibbs Elizabeth Parker Dominic Glynn Richard Hartley Keff McCulloch Mark Ayres John Debney Murray Gold

Not sure if Malcolm Lockyer qualifies. You will see a lot of red links. I have added "Doctor Who composer" category to about six of these in the last few days. I do not think a template is appropriate, because most of these are famous for other work too. But it is surprising that there is no Dudley Simpson article yet, so perhaps others could consider writing up some of the missing names. I will have a go (time permitting) too. DavidFarmbrough 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac on Spearhead, surely? Angmering 17:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought they used that too but it doesn't matter, that was an example of the type of musical composer I wasn't talking about! DavidFarmbrough 15:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice idea. This one occurred to me too a while back, but just never seemed to have the time. Remember Dudley Simpson also appeared on screen in Talons, so he should get DW actor status too. It is amazing no one has written his article yet... Litefoot 18:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Deadly Dudley has now been written! And so has Mark Ayres. DavidFarmbrough 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to user:Beware The Daleks for doing Malcolm Lockyer and Carey Blyton - and I see also Bill McGuffie, who did the music for the second Dalek film and who I had completely forgotten! DavidFarmbrough 12:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin help

Apologies for being slightly off topic, but could I draw the attention of one of the WikiProject's admins to the short thread at Template talk:Imdb title#Linked text? As the template is protected it needs an admin to make the change. (I'm not sure whether it needs discussion anywhere else first - the template's talk page was the obvious place.) Thanks. —Whouk (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Past Doctor Adventures sorting

CzechOut (talk · contribs) is creating articles for the PDAs at the moment, so we're probably going to need to start sorting them into Category:First Doctor novels, etc. at some point. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 05:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. We may also want to look at either using or adapting Template:Infobox Book for our novel pages, like we did with Template:Bigfinishbox for the audios. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's {{Doctorwhobook}}, which I've tried out on Lungbarrow. My only issue with it is the redundancy of "Set Between" and "Preceding" and "Following". That's needed for the PDAs, but for sequential series like the NAs and the EDAs it seems a little redundant. Does any body know how to fix a template so that non-filled in fields simply disappear? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added class{{{set_between|}}}="hiddenStructure" - has that done the trick? —Whouk (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks that way! --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 08:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As a note, I've changed (or will) all the template boxes so that blank fields will not be displayed. This will allow us not to have to put "None" or "N/A" in those fields that have no info anymore. We may want to slowly start changing those (or leave it as is in case people wonder why there's nothing for those fields...). --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 11:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I created the categories, but there are currently no First Doctor novels with articles so that category is empty for now. Tim (meep) 17:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Created The Empire of Glass so it's not empty now. Tim (meep) 18:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


Is it worth giving these little snippets an article of their own? NP Chilla 12:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should have one each, but maybe there should be a summary at TARDISODES or Tardisodes (or maybe even TARDISodes). --Thelb4 11:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I created a test of TARDISODES here, to be expanded later. Edits to it are welcome! --Thelb4 11:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If there's no objection, I will move the page to a main namespace page in 24 hours time. --Thelb4 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to the existence of the article as such, although I'm wondering how substantial an article it can be. I'm not sure where it might conceivably be merged, though. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 13:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
We could give a synopsis of each TARDISODE on the page, like with the actual episodes (eg The Unquiet Dead), and I think there is more information available. --Thelb4 14:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There could be a page for supplementary material to the new series that would also include the Graske whatsis, the tie-in websites, and whatnot. -- 20:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
There are already pages for those, at Attack of the Graske and Doctor Who tie-in websites. --Thelb4 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Page created! I'm still not sure whether it should be at TARDISODE or Tardisode, though. --Thelb4 14:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Newbie says hi: Algebra of Ice?

Hello, I've just signed up to Wikipedia today, although I've used it for research for some months now. Apologies if I'm in the wrong place or making mistakes - I have nosed around guidelines and sandboxes but there is a lot to try to take in.

Anyway, I was looking at Wikipedia's entries for prime numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis and noted that Lloyd Rose's book [[The Algebra of Ice]] is actually an action=edit non-stub [7] - now, I don't know that Wikimathematicians would necessarily be interested in a link, but I suspect that it would be quite useful for Wikiwhoies (is that what we're called?). I remember a precedent in that Reckless Engineering is listed in Further Reading at the Isambard Kingdom Brunel entry.

I notice that the BBC Books ranges have many red entries, and I should be happy to contribute in this field. Would such contributions be welcome, and if so, to whom should I talk?

I live in Johannesburg, RSA, but grew up in the UK on a diet of Target novelisations and Tom Baker. The 2005 series has not yet been shown in South Africa, but I acquired the DVD box set last Christmas. I am male, 34.

If you're in doubt just be bold! Any contribution (as long as it is not vandalism) is fine, as long as you follow the guidelines. By the way, us on Wikipedia are called Wikipedians. --Thelb4 14:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Past Doctor Adventures/Eighth Doctor Adventures

It seems that more and more new articles for the novels are being created; of course, there's nothing wrong with that, such a stroke should be applauded, but they all seem terribly thin, without even a plot synopsis or continuity notes section between them. Anyone have any ideas on how we can organise them/fatten them up? NP Chilla 16:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've fattened up Just War (Doctor Who), Oh No It Isn't! and Walking to Babylon by putting the books in context (e.g. in terms of the author's other work), discussing themes and influences, and detailing (with links) any significant recurring characters/aliens/ideas. Bondegezou 11:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who spoofs

I started this new article to cover the various sketches and spoofs of Doctor Who and would appreciate any additions to it. Tim (meep) 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, Tim.--Sean Black (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It made front page as a Did you know? Thanks for all the contributions :-) Tim (meep) 21:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Would it be worth having an errors page so that those of us who merely browse wikipedia could flag stuff for the team to check, rather than fiddle about and possibly undo changes which were made for a reason? So, for example, rather than me trying to edit out "the first companion from an ethnic minority" in the Anji Kapoor entry and put it in the Roz Forrester entry, I'd flag it up for you guys to change (or clarify the reasoning e.g. in the C30th Roz wasn't from a minority). This would reduce duplication of effort, perhaps? --Magslhalliday

Hi Mags. Welcome to Wikipedia. Every article has a Talk page for discussing this sort of thing, so an easy way to flag things up is to post a comment to the article's Talk page - you can create a new thread by clicking the "+" icon at the top of the Talk page. If, as above, the issues affects more than one article, then this page is a good place to raise it. —Whouk (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I added comments today to the Doctor Who "spin-off" page, only to discover that prior to my comments khaosworks had apparently attempted to move the conversation here. The conversation, which seems to have come from TimPope's query on how to condense the article, was quite old, though, so perhaps we've moved on. Still, it's really nagging at me, so, if you don't mind, I'll reduce my arguments on the article's Talk page here. I don't understand how we're using the term "spin-off" throughout the wikiproject. It seems inconsistent with the way that spin-off is defined outside the project. How on God's green Earth, for example, is a novelisation a "spin-off"? It's simply a novelisation, or maybe, if you really felt the need to give it another name, a tie-in.

It seems to me that the way forward in terms of condensing that article is to keep only those things that are genuine spin-offs in that article--Miranda, Faction Paradise, Torchwood, K9 & Company, Sarah Jane Smith, etc. Then, create another article, called "Doctor Who in other media", which would be the "umbrella article" for the various kinds of Doctor Who novels, comics, and audios which actually star the Doctor. Then, the recently-started "Doctor Who Merchandise" would be a third article, but not directly linked to the first two articles.

As things stand now, I really think the first line of the article Doctor Who spin-offs is an outright inaccuracy, which is why later in the introduction the author(s) have had to take pains to say that they're not like other science fiction spin-offs. The dissimilarity isn't because Doctor Who is a "special" phenomenon. They aren't like other spin-offs because they're not spin-offs. CzechOut 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You could be right — how about "Doctor Who spin-offs and tie-ins"? Tim (meep) 16:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Do mean that we would include the Doctor Who tie-in websites? NP Chilla 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that's a good suggestion. I've been having a related discussion at Talk:Eighth_Doctor. Bondegezou 12:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nev Fountain

His relationship to Doctor Who is a bit tangential, so I thought folks here might not notice that I'd created a stub for Nev Fountain. I did a smattering of research, but I'll wager that there are members of the WikiProject who can add a fair bit more info. (For example, I don't even know whether his full name is Neville, as one might expect — I found only one reference to him as "Neville Fountain", and it's in an article that also mentions "Christopher Ecclestone", so I don't have much confidence in its fact-checking.)

Anyway, the page is there if anyone wants to do anything to it. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 09:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Interestingly, the Guardian article you linked is by Andy Bodle, who used to be an editor on the Virgin Who books. —Whouk (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So it is — I suppose he would know about the "Doctor Who mafia"! —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Having a bit of a discussion on Talk:Lady Serena if anyone hasn't noticed yet. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Airzone Solution

For anyone interested, I've created an article based on the (rather good) BBV production The Airzone Solution, which I just watched for the first time. There are still a few things missing from the article such as images and an infobox, but it's a start. 23skidoo 01:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Outpost Gallifrey

SGCommand (talk · contribs) created this recently and asked for help in expanding it. I've done an initial cleanup but it needs more looking at and expansion. Just a heads-up. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 17:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens

Please also look in on Talk:List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, as the page is growing unweildy. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who clichés

I created the page today. It already has a redirect from Doctor Who cliches. proteus71 20:50, 11 Apr 2006

I don't know about this one. Looks rather POV to me. As it stands now I don't think it would survive an AFD challenge. 23skidoo 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been around for more than 15 minutes and already you're saying it may be deleted? Either help improve it or give others time to do so. proteus71 21:17, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)
I think 23skidoo is suggesting - and I'm afraid I would agree - that by its nature it can never be an objective article, any more than Best episodes of Doctor Who would be. I think the content is good, just not encyclopedic. —Whouk (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Consider perusing the articles: Cliché, List of cliché lists, List of clichés on television, List of science fiction clichés, and Anti-cliché, among others. Outside of Wikipedia, anyone who's taken several years worth of lit classes can tell you that clichés are not merely subjective phenomena. proteus71 21:48, 11 Apr 2006.
Even granting that, can we come up with an article on this subject that follows the policies on NPOV and no original research? I suppose some clichés like "base under siege" are non-controversial enough, and widely used in secondary sources like About Time and The Discontinuity Guide — but I worry that some of the clichés listed on the page now (such as "previous adventures" or "written out") reflect a point of view not universally shared by Doctor Who viewers and/or critics. Even if it's a point of view I happen to share, I worry that the presentation is a bit too subjective. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 22:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 23skidoo and Josiah — the clichés in the other articles are much more general and probably not disputed: the way this article is presented is particular to a POV as to what constitutes a Doctor Who cliché or even whether it should be defined a "cliché" or a particular storytelling convention like "base under siege" or "alien invasion". In addition, some of what is listed is not even specific to Doctor Who (last minute solutions for example), not really a story point (quarries). Is a reference to a past adventure a cliché, as other programmes do it all the time (Stargate SG-1 is really good at that), or merely good/bad continuity? It depends on your POV, which is the problem.
Of what can be verified, is it considered notable and/or cited as a cliché somewhere (remember, it's not whether or not such a situation can be said to exist in multiple Doctor Who stories, but whether or not it is actually considered a cliché by fans)? I don't really see how it can be salvaged unless it is severely rewritten and perhaps given a whole new title altogether, but what's left may not be worth having an article on its own. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to respond to a couple of things: I never said it should be deleted, only that if someone were to AFD it, it would lose. And also, yes I do feel this article stands little chance of being objective unless it's thoroughly sourced. None of the cliches listed are unique to Doctor Who, either. 23skidoo 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
And to think I haven't even added Corridors yet. I don't know where some of you are coming from. Can anyone seriously claim there isn't a DW cliché about dropping off a companion in a badly written manner when it's happened at least four times? proteus71 19:53, 12 Apr 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether anyone is disagreeing that these are Doctor Who clichés; only whether it's appropriate to say so here. My concern is that by asserting that such-and-such is a Doctor Who cliché, we might be engaging in original research, unless we can point to a secondary source saying the same thing. Now, that may well be possible (especially with examples like quarries and running up and down corridors), but without citation the article is treading on the edge of WP:NOR, I think.
I should say that I like the idea of the article, I'm just concerned about whether it follows Wikipedia policies. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 19:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to consult an outside source to state the obvious. Is there a serious DW fan alive who hasn't once noticed that their favorite SF program has a lot of corridors? Too many planets that look like quarries? That the Master survives once too often in the JNT years? That a lot of small understaffed bases find themselves under siege from aliens? If I'm the only one who noticed this since 1963, the page should go. If I'm not, then the page should stay. If some of the words I wrote need to go, fine; that's the point of Wikipedia. But the ideas are accurate -- and, dare I say, not original to anyone who has every asked themselves about how DW production teams created their output from script to screen inclusive.

To put it another way, this page documents what fans have noticed since before some of us were born. If I put it into writing first (and I don't think I have), that doesn't make the intellectual content my personal POV. It just means there existed a small oral tradition that finally got written down. And if I made any mistakes, this was the right place to make them, since all of you have the right to edit them and make the article better for it. proteus71 20:41, 12 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I should have added: if you find that the idea of such a page to be a good one but my particular implementation of it to not fit Wikipedia standards, there's also no problem. What I am arguing against is the idea that such a page cannot fit at all into Wikipedia because of the NPOV rule. Why not have articles documenting fan opinion(s) as best as possible? And if mine didn't quite fly, let's reboot it.
proteus71 23:25, 12 Apr 2006 (UTC)
It's not just NPOV. It's also verifiability and most of all original research. You've hit the nail on the head when you ask why not have articles "documenting fan opinion(s)" - if it's not documented anywhere, therefore it falls under the ambit of NOR. And for every fan that has questioned any number of corridors or quarries, there's another who just doesn't care. So to actually identify these as clichés (rather than, say, simply tropes) is to promulgate a particular POV (in any case, the Master article, for example, does mention that the Master keeps coming back for no discernible reason). Perhaps discussions like these are best kept in other websites and references simply be made to them within articles rather than any central repository. It may be a good idea for an article - I'm just unconvinced it's a good idea for Wikipedia. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying now. The act of collecting fan opinion involves research in a broad sense; even though the fan opinion isn't "new", the data gathering exercise itself becomes an object of scutiny and must be considered original.
I hope there would be a proper way to document those patterns within the program that appeared on the cliché page but aren't yet mentioned elsewhere -- not unlike how that Hartnell article deals with fan opinion. Anyway, I have the article backed up, so it won't be permanently lost by removing it from Wikipedia. Thanks for keeping it up during this discussion. I appreciate that.
proteus71 1:09, 13 Apr 2006 (UTC)
If you put it up on the web somewhere, or in a subpage of your user space, please let us know. —Whouk (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I may post it on my own web site once I retool it a little. Obviously, it will remain under the GFDL. proteus71 18:03, 13 Apr 2006 (UTC)

To everyone: does that mean we can CSD the article, or AFD this as original research? --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 07:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If proteus71, Josiah and Litefoot (as the only editors on the article so far) are OK to have to deleted, it could be speedied. Otherwise, it should go to AfD. —Whouk (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's unsalvageable, and if it went to AFD I'm not sure how I'd vote. I think that it could be made non-OR, but it would need a lot of restructuring and research in published fan criticism, research that frankly I don't have the time to do myself right now. (For example, I seem to recall an article or two on the subject in Doctor Who Magazine at some point in the last few years, but it's only the vaguest memory and many of my back issues are in storage and not readily accessible.) Another alternative would be to find notable examples of people calling such-and-such a Doctor Who cliché (as for example, David Tennant saying it about quarries at the press launch). I dunno, I've got mixed feelings about this one. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The question really is whether it should be retained in its current form. If there's no attempt to restructure it to fit within policy, then surely we shouldn't just leave it there until it magically does; if it needs to be reconstructed from the ground up, let's delete it and recreate it when we figure out what form it should take. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 17:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's fair. Unless Proteus71 wants to do the rebuilding work (which, as I said, would take a lot of effort to find suitable sources), I suppose we shouldn't just let it sit there. One other alternative for Proteus is to move the article to Wikicities Wikia Tardis, which doesn't have the same restrictions on original research and NPOV that Wikipedia does. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another discussion for those who might have missed it

See Talk:Spearhead from Space. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mentos (Doctor Who)

I just came upon this. I'd be inclined to merge it into one of the lists, but it doesn't quite fit any of them. Thoughts? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge to The One Doctor. Phil Sandifer 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
While you're at it, there's the The Shelves of Infinity as well. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

New articles to mull over

List of Doctor who Airdates — redirect to List of Doctor Who serials?

Doctor Who: Podshock — are podcasts notable? Is this podcast notable?

Tim! 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

We have some podcasts link on the main article. I very much doubt than any of them deserves their own article. —Whouk (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
List of Doctor Who Airdates is being created by some editors who are doing this all over; I don't think Wikipedia should be a listings magazine. Podshock, while pretty good (I listen to it and it's why I added it to the links to begin with) I don't think it's notable enough yet. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 22:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)