Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 → Archive 34

Doctor Who novels fansite URL change: The Cloister Library

I just wanted to bring this to the WikiProject's attention: the website whose sole aim is to review all Doctor Who novels The Cloister Library has changed its website hosting and thus has a new URL. I'll work on the external links of the various novel articles to reflect the change, but feel free to lend a helping hand or tentacle.--DrWho42 (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How reliable is this site considered? Robert Smith? has published critical analysis books on Doctor Who that I have used... Glimmer721 talk 23:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

New exec producer

So Brian Minchin has been announced as the new executive producer with "immediate effect". http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/brian-minchin.html My question is does this mean that he is an exec producer on the 50th episode, which is surely still filming? U-Mos (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is going to be one of those "wait until the credits come out" thing. I'm not sure what to do on the article... Glimmer721 talk 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed that his page redirects to SJA. Would this be something to change in the future? (Considering we never made a page on Caroline Skinner). Glimmer721 talk 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've moved the redirect to Doctor Who for now, as this is surely his most high profile role. U-Mos (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Prequels (again)

A while ago when editing Doctor Who (series 6) I went bold and removed the expanisve episode list of prequels and added a paragraph under "Promotion". This was undone together, and I was wondering if we could get a bit of a discussion about this. I think talking about the prequels under "Promotion" is necessary, as they were part of promotion and also a first for the programme. I question whether the long episode list is necessary because the summaries don't add anything important and can be trivial. They're already on the individual episode pages, which are supposed to me more in-depth. At any rate I think they should be in "Promotion". Glimmer721 talk 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Matt in series 8?

A lot of places online (unreliable in themselves) say that the late March edition of Radio Times (cover "Who's That Girl?") confirmed Matt's involvement in series 8. Is anyone aware of exactly what Matt was quoted as saying there? U-Mos (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Madame Vastra

Please help source and expand the Madame Vastra article. It's already been deleted once. Whoodude (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Expand to Paternoster gang perhaps? U-Mos (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion of expanding it into an article about the Paternoster Gang in general. I'll help out with fleshing it out later when I have the time. Comics (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

David Howe article

Hi, folks. I've been mostly inactive here for a while, but I noticed that David J. Howe's article had been deleted, and I'm trying to get it back. It's currently residing in my userspace, at User:Josiah_Rowe/David_J._Howe. I've been adding sources as I can find them, but I'd like to get a few more (preferably from either non-fan media or from professionally published media like SFX) before submitting the article for AFC. Any help would be appreciated! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see Telos Publishing has just been nominated for deletion AGAIN too... Mabalu (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, without any notification of this project. Bad form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
When a WikiProject has article alerts - as this one does - some AfD nominators consider that any other message is unnecessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that we had that. But then, I'm not really active here any more. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear - a source calling Angie and Artie companions

"The Doctor gains a couple of companions this week..." Change their status, or wait for broadcast? (Personally I'm thinking of them as guest stars coming along for the ride in this one episode, with the lead-in from The Crimson Horror, but the source confuses matters.) U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As a point of reference, see Dinosaurs on a Spaceship. Reviews of the episode might help. DonQuixote (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear...

I foresee that for the next six months and five days we'll be cleaning up or reverting unsourced speculation. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

All in a day's work in Wikipedia.-- MisterShiney ✉ 21:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hurt Doctor

How should the incarnation of the Doctor played by John Hurt in The Name of the Doctor be treated. Should he have his own article ? Hektor (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He should probably be treated like the Valeyard. DonQuixote (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think we should wait until there is more information available because otherwise it is going to be a very short article and will be deleted quickly. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens

I have noticed that a few months ago (completed around Christmas) this page was converted from an actual list into a table that contains esoteric notes and links to the episodes where the creatures are featured. It strikes me that this is the sort of page that satisfies an obsessive fan to create, but is utterly useless from a reader's point of view. Who is going to consult this table and for what purpose? There is no actual information on the creatures and aliens. So someone who is not knowledgeable about the show and just wants to know what e.g. "Atraxi" means will be redirected to this page where they will have to manually search the page for the entry and then click a link to an episode's page and then read the whole plot summary for the explanation they need. If there is no information on the page, it might as well be deleted and the creature's name redirect simply to the episode. It would be better in my opinion to revert to the old version and add the creatures that have appeared on the show since. What surprises me the most is that I cannot find any discussion about this anywhere. Was this discussed at all? Mezigue (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be have been split into three articles: List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (0-9) & (A-G) List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (H-P) and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (Q-Z). If this format is maintained, perhaps the name in the table should link to the relevant item on one of those three pages. Edgepedia (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Ahah, so it has! Well that should be made more explicit, because "further information" notices in italics can escape the eye. This is a very unusual format, isn't it? I don't think I have seen any other page split along alphabetical lines. But then why not split the table too? It really hasn't got any use on its own. Mezigue (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the table has no function. The original format should stay. (And I assume the change led to many double redirects as well?) U-Mos (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It was very much against the principles of Writing about Fiction to merge the three shows' creatures lists just because they "exist in the same universe." Such a bad job was done of it that many monsters' sections don't even specify what show they appear in, it just reads like a nonsense taxonomy of non-notable things. It's a massive clusterfuck.Zythe (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember it, but the discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_25#Revisiting_merging_the_creature.2Falien_lists. Edgepedia (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Article quality

Hi there. A lot of Doctor Who articles, particularly related to the Audio series, tend to end up as unreferenced stubs and end up after initial interest not being developed. A lot of articles in the scope of this project don't have a reference section at all. Lots of articles have warnings about the lack of citations going back several years and no-one has done anything about it.

Can I ask for support in doing the following

  • Adding reference sections to the bottom of all Doctor Who articles.
  • Making sure there are at least primary citations to the material (IE the BBC, Big Finish webpages).
  • Seeking out secondary references to support Doctor Who articles

Key examples are the Big Finish Doctor Who stories that have been broadcast on BBC Radio 4 Extra, as the BBC programme pages can provide good references to back the articles up.

Thanks Rankersbo (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know?

I need to preface this question by explaining that I try to avoid finding out anything about upcoming seasons and episodes so that I can experience them as freshly as possible. Thus, the answer to my question might be easy to find but I haven't gone looking for it.

For the 20th season of the show John Nathan-Turner made a point of having each episode include a character, villain or reference to the shows past. He also made sure that this was part of the press releases covering the season. I have noticed that the current series seven has, more or less, done the same thing.

  • 7-1 Daleks
  • 7-2 Silurians/dinosouars
  • 7-3 The Stetson hat
  • 7-4 The Brig's daughter Kate
  • 7-5 The Weeping Angels
  • Xmas Sp The Great Intelligence
  • 7-6 The St Johns emblem on the Tardis door
  • 7-7 The reference to Susan
  • 7-8 The Ice Warriors
  • 7-9 A blue crystal from Metebelis III

Now, I know some of these are tenuous compared to the overt mentions in the 20th season and as it stands this is just WP:OR on my part. So I am wondering if Moffat or anyone else from the production team has mentioned that they are doing this on purpose. If so could we add a mention of it to Doctor Who (series 7). If not then no worries we will just get to enjoy continuing to look for these in the episodes to come. As ever thanks for your time in looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen reviews talk about it but nothing so far from the production team, though with the absence of Confidential it's a bit hard. What's interesting is that "Cold War" is a Troughton homage, and "Hide" contained many references to Pertwee stories ("Oh, that's right, it's the 70s, you're the assistant") with a Hinchliffe tone. "The Rings of Akhaten" was even a bit Hartnell-esque. The series as a whole seems to be about what Doctor Who has done and what it can do, but frustratingly I haven't found anything about this from interviews. Glimmer721 talk 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how deliberate these things would be, especially as we know that UNIT and Ice Warrior appearances this series were proposed by the individual episode writers rather than Moffat himself. U-Mos (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
My understanding is that Season 20 was intentional - I'm not sure how intentional this is though. Especially every episode - maybe Moffat will reveal "Oh hey Great Intelligence yeah we brought that back because anniversary year and it's been ages" but then some of these also seem just like little drops (Susan is like the casual references by the Doctor to "rubbish at weddings", "I know the feeling [before this war I was a father and grandfather, now I am neither]" and "I was a dad once") that when all put into one season (and this season of all seasons... Comics (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your input. Yes, as I mentioned the season 20 items were intentional. Back then I only had to avoid reading any info about upcoming episodes in Doctor Who monthly to keep from knowing the story lines. It is mind boggling how many more outlets there are today where that information is being disseminated. Isn't it a delightful coincidence that (due to the vagaries of the Georgian calendar) that the 50th anniversary falls on a Saturday? MarnetteD | Talk 05:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

On an aside, reports on season 20's plans are mixed - JNT claimed that it was unintentional until pointed out to him and he made it a selling point in the press releases. Saward has claimed in at least one interview it was intentional and thus it gets into "he said, he said". Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox of Doctor Who (film)

There's an edit war going on over the infobox of Doctor Who (film), see page history. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to anyone who owns The Writer's Tale

List of Doctor Who serials mentions RTD as an uncredited co-writer of The Fires of Pompeii, cited to the Writer's Tale reference book, in the same manner as earlier episodes such as The Green Death which were substantially re-written by the script editors of the time. The article page, however, does not credit RTD as a writer in the infobox and only claims that Davies and Moran worked "closely" on the writing. The Writer's Tale is not provided as a source here, using instead a DWM issue. So, which interpretation is more accurate? Should RTD be considered an uncredited co-writer of this episode? Any input from those with access to these print sources would be greatly appreciated. U-Mos (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now noticed that the same issue also exists with The Impossible Planet and The Satan Pit. U-Mos (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been some time since I've read it, but, with the exception of Moffat, Davies would script edit as part of his role as executive producer. Give me the page references, and I can double check, but I don't think it was a substantial rewrite. Sceptre (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Both the Writer's Tale refs are missing page numbers as well, unfortunately. U-Mos (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who title 1973-1980.jpg

This image has been commented out of the infoboxes of the season articles for Seasons 11-15 and 17 with the edit summary "Commenting out use(s) of file "File:Doctor Who title 1973-1980.jpg": See WP:NFC#UUI #14"

Is this correct? Isn't it standard practice to use the title card for season articles that do not yet have an overall DVD release? Since most of the classic series Season articles have the logos in the infobox, this could have a wide ranging effect - even the new series articles use a logo until the DVD/BD cover is released Etron81 (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

...Maybe I'm not reading this right, but they've removed the title card for Seasons 11-15 and 17 (presumably to cut down on non-free media?) and use a policy that says "a logo of a perennial event... if each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable"? Maybe I'm not reading this right, but to me in this context that suggests that if seasons have their own logos sure, why not, include those in the article?
I also checked up on the user's page/contributions and they seem to be a polarising figure: see here and here. That said, I do believe there should be sufficient material in books such as 'Doctor Who: The Seventies' to warrant the re-inclusion of the diamond logo for Season 11, discussing the creation of the new title sequence and the techniques involved there-in and using the logo as a kind of 'see, look what they did!'. Not to mention the diamond logo is sufficiently iconic in and of itself, so surely there would be out-of-universe commentary discussing the importance of this change/the longevity of the logo itself, which could justify inclusion on at least that page as a discussion about changes to the show's image/production details. Comics (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Villain Templates

Why are there so many templates for minor villains with only a few appearances: Template:Judoon stories, Template:Macra stories, Template:Ood stories, Template:Wirrn stories, Template:Zygon stories, Template:Great Intelligence stories, Template:Celestial Toymaker stories, Template:Valeyard stories, Template:Weeping Angel stories.

188.221.79.22 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly because Finister2 (talk · contribs) enjoys making them. I think some of them were listed at TFD at some point but I could be wrong. MarnetteD | Talk 14:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Er, Finister2 created just two. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
My apologies to F for getting the count wrong. Redrose can you check on the ones that were deleted sometime back because I thought it was one editor who was into creating them. Not that it answers the OP's question. I don't know that they are a problem but I also don't know how much useful they are to an article. MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Template:Judoon stories and Template:Weeping Angel stories are eligible for WP:CSD#G4 because of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 13#Template:Judoon stories and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 13#Template:Weeping Angel stories respectively (if using {{db-repost}}, make sure you include the relevant TfD link). Several that Finister2 created in the past have not been recreated: Template:Arcateenian stories; Template:Black Guardian stories; Template:Cybus Cybermen stories; Template:Draconian stories; Template:Graske stories; Template:The Monk stories; Template:Omega stories; Template:Rassilon stories; Template:Rutan stories; Template:Doctor Who Shakespeare stories; Template:Trickster stories. If you click the redlink you should get the deletion logs. None of the other seven listed by 188.221.79.22 have ever been deleted; they have various creators, just look for the oldest entry in the page histories. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to dig these out. Whoosh Oct of 2011 - time goes by so fast I thought it was more recent. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've amended the Valeyard and Celestial Toymaker templates, as both read as if audio and novel appearances were part of the television series (making them seem to have many more appearances than they actually did). U-Mos (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Mind of Evil

In the latest DWM, the feature on The Mind of Evil DVD comments that Wikipedia has been proved wrong via a comment by director Tim Combe. Does anyone know what this is? I haven't got the DVD yet. The only info on Combe contained in the article is about the production going over budget, so I'm guessing it's something related to that?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Judging by what has been added (often by anons without sources) and later removed, it's possibly the Babelcolour info, or the specific episodes that required to be re-coloured manually - see this removal and this addition. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to check the precise wording again but on the commentary it's explicitly stated that Fernada Marlowe was never married to William Marlowe and that Wikipedia is wrong (I've sinced edited both articles). It may be that Combe rather than Marlowe raised this or something's amiss in the DWM editing.
The commentary seems to have been recorded when only the raw colour recoveries of 2-6 were available but the team played along from the start (something similar happened on Planet of the Daleks 3). However I doubt DWM would be highlighting that. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I just finished the commentaries last night and can confirm Timrollpickering's comments. Fernanda raises the point and then Combe comments on it. When you consider that Letts died Oct of 09 that means they had to have been recorded 4+/- years ago so many things could have changed in the interim. MarnetteD | Talk 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Luke and The Green Death

I happened across this tidbit of information; the source is of course unreliable, but it's sourced to The Green Death special edition that's coming out next month. Should we wait until it is released to the public before the info can be put into related articles? Glimmer721 talk 20:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Both take their cue from Blogtor, but these two sources are also reporting this: http://www.cultbox.co.uk/news/headlines/7343-the-sarah-jane-adventures-writer-luke-would-have-been-gay#.UdU9YiBQF8k.twitter http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/07/04/pure-golder-what-was-so-normal-about-sarah-jane-smiths-son/ U-Mos (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Woah, and here I was thinking the gay subtext in "The Nightmare Man" was just a bit of Russell T Davies "smart kid off to Oxford" autobiographical reminiscence.Zythe (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about non-free content in Doctor Who articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Category:Doctor Who character images the members of this WikiProject might be interested in. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray references

What is the reliable sources to references to for DVD/Blu-ray, reason I ask I want to reference all dates and then the article might become a featured list. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been using the online BBC Shop (although make sure the dates are accurate there) and otherwise Amazon, but news articles from reliable sources (not fansites) would be the best. Glimmer721 talk 19:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and Doctor Who Magazine might also be a really good source. I believe they have a regular feature about upcoming releases. Glimmer721 talk 19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MULTI, please can we concentrate discussion at the original thread, which is Talk:List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases#DVD/Blu-ray references. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. 19:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Eccleston's leaving "statement"

Is there a link to the full statement that the BBC falsely attributed to Chris to confirm his departure? It's not cited at Rose (Doctor Who), Christopher Eccleston or Ninth Doctor (although the former states with no support that it was initially claimed he would leave at Christmas 2005). It should really be sourced, it seems the BBC removed it from their site after retracting it the next day but it must have been recorded somewhere? U-Mos (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it is sourced to here, which says the BBC released as statement that he was in fear of being typecast. Do you mean the original press release or whatever it was? Did they actually release one publicly? Glimmer721 talk 01:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the original press release. It doesn't seem to be quoted in full anywhere; I can't even find any reports that came prior to their admission that it was a false statement, even though that happened a day after the statement was made. U-Mos (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes I see that now. It's probably something that is only available through the Wayback machine, and possibly only through third-party sources if they took it down so fast. I unfortunately can never figure out how to search that thing. Glimmer721 talk 15:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment at Talk:Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor

Hi, I've asked a question at the page mentioned above and would like a consensus to be reached so it can be answered. I'd appreciate it is it could be answered. Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 14:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to delete it at this late stage, but I'm going to be WP:BOLD and request a move to Twelfth Doctor in preparation for the influx of info on the subject later today. U-Mos (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think it best to redirect until the announcement is made. All editors can see the work done on this page and use its text and sources by accessing its previous revision. (Also, in answer to the original question the announcement show's title should be placed in italics. U-Mos (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

12th Doctor - Protected articles

Just a notice, I semi-protected Peter Capaldi and Doctor Who for a day following the former's announcement to be the 12th Doctor. If it calms down sooner, please unprotect or please renew protection if it continues. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor

Rhain1999 created the Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor page today which was then turned into a redirect to the Twelfth Doctor's page and the material on Doctor Who Live was deleted. I have now brought the content of the page up to date and am currently storing it in my sandbox. My question now is where should the content that was originally on that page, and is now stored in my sandbox, be put now? Bestbaggiesfan ✉ 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not deleted, it's just overwritten and is easily available from the page history, as noted above. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
There isn't much real world content of note. The programme itself certainly wasn't notable. You may want to mention on the Twelfth Doctor page that the announcement was made in a live broadcast after a minor leak led to bookmakers closing bets several days before.Zythe (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Articles in Category Doctor Who as of 6 August 2013

Greetings, wikiwhovians. I created the above page to debunk Jusdafax's ignorant comment at WP:ITN/C that posting the 12th Doctor news on the front page of Wikipedia was "deeply unencyclopedic and an embarrassment to the encyclopedia". At a total of 1,947 articles, it's quite impressive. Anyway, I'm done with it now, but maybe you folks have a use for it (by clicking Related changes maybe?), or maybe not. Either way, I thought it prudent to let you guys here know it existed, seeing as it's in your space-time dimension. DW meter (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing episodes returned?

I suspect y'all have seen the various rumours that a large number of missing Dr Who episodes have been located and returned to the BBC. Hopefully, this is true, but there's been no confirmation, so, from a Wikipedia point of view, it is not verifiable by reliable sources. However, someone editing at 94.173.251.249 has been editing articles to say these episodes have been returned: see last three edits at Special:Contributions/94.173.251.249. Would someone like to tackle this? Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've given a template warning, which can be built upon if this IP re-adds. U-Mos (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
All rumours should be treated as such - rumour - and so do not deserve mention. If it's not even a rumour, that makes it a WP:HOAX.
For topics that can generate much excitement, potentially spreading across the web in minutes (such as missing episodes), we need a 100% cast-iron reliable source. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, this is a genuine rumour but as it was added with no citation at all it was a fairly cut-and-dry situation. I have not seen any reliable sources reporting on it so far. The rumour is that the entirety of Marco Polo, Web of Fear and The Enemy of the World have been found but have not yet been secured by the BBC. Obviously, if it is true then an announcement will be forthcoming once the episodes are secured, as happened with Galaxy 4 and The Underwater Menace. U-Mos (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfire and Name of the Doctor

Wanted to check this one before going ahead, because it's treading the WP:OR line I think. How much can we say about the Dragonfire cliff dangle's use in "The Name of the Doctor"? It's not hard to see that it was a retrospective explanation for what is probably the show's most infamous continuity error (i.e. the Great Intelligence did it), but can we even begin to go there in the articles? Have any reliable sources noted this? U-Mos (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

A fan letter notes it in DWM 462...I'm not sure that's reliable though. Glimmer721 talk 22:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I think saying "a clip from this was used in name of the Doctor" would be okay - but trying to 'retcon' the scene by saying "The GI made seven go off the cliff" is probably OR. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
A published lettercol should be fine, especially if there's an editorial reply, I should think?Zythe (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox on the 10th's page is wacked

The 10th Doctor's infobox is not displaying properly, and I am unsure how to fix it. Vyselink (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On Target now a dead link

The On Target source used in the "External links" section for much of the classic series (as well as referenced in some of the articles themselves) does not appear to be active anymore ([1]). I'm not sure if the site has gone down or is just unavailable. There seems to be nothing yet in the Wayback Archive. Glimmer721 talk 01:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's gone and come back (weeks later) at least twice in the last six years or so. Don't give up until at least two weeks into the new term at the University of Leeds. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh I was not aware of that, thanks! I'll wait for it to come back. Is it considered reliable? Glimmer721 talk 02:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Future Events with reliable sources

Throughout a number of pages within the remit of this project there has been the tendency to not add pieces of information about things which will happen in the future despite the fact that there is a reliable source for the fact. A discussion was started here about one such part of the wiki but I think there needs to be a wider discussion about this subject.

Having read the guidance on the matter I'm confident that including any of the following things is acceptable with the provision of a reliable source

  • The tenure of Matt Smith ends in the 2013 Christmas special
  • The tenure of Peter Capaldi starts during the 2013 Christmas special
  • Jenna Coleman will be returning for series 8

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Those bits of information are already mentioned in the respective articles and the proper sources are cited. It's not a question of WP:CRYSTAL. It's more a question of presentation of the material. There's another similar discussion at Talk:List of actors who have played the Doctor#Table Headings DonQuixote (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources for the things you state? Surely all we have is these changes have been announced and are planned? We only have reliable sources for things that have happened. Edgepedia (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous reliable sources (from the BBC itself) that these events will happen. The fact that they have not happened yet does not matter as it is not unreasonable to expect these things to happen with the information we have at the moment. In the event that something happens (eg Peter Capaldi suddenly changes his mind) to change what has been revealed so far then we will have to update the pages to reflect that. The example I'd give is that the next football world cup has been announced as being in Brazil, it has not happened yet but it is not unreasonable to expect it to be there. In the event that enough of the venues are not ready in time then there would be a case for moving it to another country (there was speculation like this for the 2010 world cup in South Africa) but the articles on the next world cup will currently state that Brazil is the next venue and would only be updated in the event that it was moved to somewhere else. While you can't speculate about the future you can state what has been announced will happen. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think all I can say is I disagree. Edgepedia (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I would point you to this discussion on the topic (albeit in relation to soaps). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess that I was right to make this revert then. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Spudgfsh, doesn't that discussion make the point I was trying to make — that is you can't say "Jenna Coleman will be returning for series 8". However, you can say "Coleman has accepted to appear in series 8, which is planned to appear in 2014", or "Coleman is filming for series 8, planned to appear in 2014", or something with better grammar, depending on what the sources say. This lets the readers know exactly what the reliable sources say and lets them form their own opinion. When we say something will happen based on our feeling of the likeliness of the event, then we start writing something based on an editor's opinion, and because people's opinions differ this then leads to revert wars and discussions on talk page that grow longer than the article we're trying to write. Caution is especially needed in the case of future Doctor Who episodes as the production staff are not going to tell us everything in advance and mislead deliberately on occasion.
Writing about past events means that we will not be wrong when plans change. We could be out-of-date, but I'd rather be a week late rather than wrong for a week [or a lot longer]. Edgepedia (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is here. WP:CRYSTAL requires that (direct quote) "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" - thus surely if the information about Series 8 has a solid source (The BBC), it is perfectly fine to stick in the info? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
CRYSTAL says we can talk about it. As DonQuixote said above, it's about the presentation of material. Sorry if that wasn't clear in what I was saying. Edgepedia (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

War Chief, synthesis, and over-quoting

I have assessed this edit as synthesis, which I have explained here. Can someone, at the very least, peer review my assessment. Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical Error 2005

I read the BBC News article about the Over the Rainbow playing at the end of The Time of Angels 1 but it also says

"It is not the first time an unexpected appearance by Norton has angered Doctor Who fans. When the series returned in 2005 after a 16-year break, a technical error caused Norton's voice to be briefly heard over the episode's opening scenes."

Does anyone know which episode it was that Norton's voice was heard, I assume it might be the first could be wrong though?

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It was the very first one [2] => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It is already in "Rose" and Doctor Who (series 1) with a different source. Glimmer721 talk 19:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, definitely "Rose". I noticed the problem at the time of the original broadcast. But that's WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing episodes: what is the truth?

Just in case the WikiProject isn't yet aware, there are threads at Talk:Doctor Who#Mirror reporting 100+ episodes just discovered and Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#UK Mirror reporting more than 100 just found. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiping Dates

original text from Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes

Hi, I was think of creating a table that list the episodes that were wiped/junking and there BBC wiping/junking date, I can reference this just want to know if anyone thinks its a good idea or if its to much for the article bear in mind its from season 1 to 11 the wiping/junking occurred. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)

That sounds <Cyberleader>excellent</Cyberleader> if you're willing to put the effort in. Appropriate emphasis should be placed on differentiating between tapes and films (pretty much every story on the current recovery does not get the difference), records being inconclusive (months given rather than date, or simply absent) and records being plain old wrong (supposed destroyed prints being many of the ones we are seeing turn up).MartinSFSA (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea but I would suggest that care be taken. If you are going to be using Molesworth's detailed (and I do mean highly detailed) book Wiped you will want to avoid copyright violations. The subject is rather large so you might also want to consider a separate article with a link to it from this one. One other suggestion is to work out the kinks of it in your sandbox and then ask for input from the members of the Dr Who wikiproject before moving it into article space. Now, all of these are only suggestions and you do not have to follow any of them. MarnetteD | Talk 17:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now made a start on examples of tables that could be used please feel free to comment or if you have an examples please feel free to add a table to my sandbox page User:Kelvin 101/Doctor Who Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)

Request for input

We could use some input at this thread Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Requested_change. I know that this has been discussed in the past but, at this moment, I can't remember what the consensus of those previous conversations was. Any input will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_21#Story_numbers? Edgepedia (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Twelfth Doctor brewing

There appears to be an (extended) edit war brewing on the Twelfth Doctor page. Contributions welcome here Talk:Twelfth Doctor#Early references => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Film Can Pictures

I have gotten permission to use the pictures from this website

http://doctorwho.org.nz/archive/tsv22/missingeps.html

of film cans does anyone think any of these images could fit into the missing episodes article.

Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying VHS, CD, DVD to Commercial Release

In The Enemy of the World article, Glimmer simplified the heading from VHS, CD, DVD releases to Commercial releases. I think that this is a good idea. I'll start doing it with the other articles as I come across them. DonQuixote (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically, an episode is released during broadcast. I though we settled on "Home media"? — Edokter (talk) — 13:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
That's even better. Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I can change others too. I had it as "commercial releases" instead of home media because in articles I've worked on I've often combined the novelisation information too (see: The Rescue, and Bladeboy1889's Englightenment). Similarly, Genesis of the Daleks has "Commercial releases and adaptions" which covers both the novelisation and the LP, and City of Death has "merchandise" as well. (Although now that I think about it...every story probably has merchandise...and we've never really covered it as much as the soundtracks, books, and audios. Should we start a topic of discussion on this?) Glimmer721 talk 16:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
As to Genesis... someone must have lumped the book info in with the VHS, DVD etc releases at some point. We have had an "In print" section for the books for as long as I can remember. I would lean towards keeping them separate but would not squawk if consensus was to change that. I agree with the using "Home media" as a section header. In fact I wish I had thought of the five or six years ago when I went through the articles and altered the headers to include each of the various items (even LP in a couple cases) in it. A belated D'oh on that one :-) MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah that was me lumping it together because there wasn't too much information on itself to warrant its own section. Other serials, like The Ark in Space or Remembrance of the Daleks, may be a different story. Tomorrow I should have some free time and I'm planning on adding information from DWM 464 to "The Rings of Akhaten" and "Hide" and finishing those off, as well as continuing to add reception to classic serials, but I'll get around to changing them all eventually to "Home media" or whatever is appropriate. Glimmer721 talk 20:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The change for Enlightenment was specified as part of the GA review I think. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't get as much time as I wanted today, but I have gone through the first season and simplified it. I'd also like to go through and add references to the releases, as many are missing them, using the Programme Guide, Amazon, AudioGo, and other sources, so if anyone is interested in helping out with that I would be grateful. Glimmer721 talk 02:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

On the article for the DVD/bluray releases we remove the reference for the release date after it has passed. I would suggest that we let the same reasoning apply to the Classic series articles "Home media" sections. I only suggest this to save you some work. You certainly can add release date references if you wish to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 04:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases? Last I heard, we were putting the release date refs back into that, in order to make it ready for WP:FLC. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah well I am always two or three step behind whatever is going on off-wiki and on :-( so please disregard my comment. A couple years ago I saw some push back against using Amazon as a ref for release dates. I don't know if that is still the case but I thought I would mention it just in case. MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I added references a while ago for the First/Second Doctor for Region 2 I used bbcshop.com, bva.org.uk For Region 4 I used bbcondvd.com.au, shop.abc.net.au, roadshow.com.au and for Region 1 tvshowsondvd.com trouble is not all of them have all the releases listed. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk)
I was talking about each serial's article but the references from the big list can just be moved over into each episode article. Citing releases is less of a priority than citing information, but it's easy to fix so I figured I'd work on it. Plus, not all of the audio releases have been mentioned in their respective articles yet (whether soundtrack of the episodes or novlisation audiobook), so working through them make it easier for me to update those. Glimmer721 talk 23:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've gone through and standardised this section in all of the serials up to (and including) The Masque of Mandrogora. Each serial now has a level 2 heading 'Commercial releases' and two level three headings 'In print' and 'Home media'. There are a few 'funnies' with soundtrack releases like here. If anyone can check my progress (or wishes to continue from where I have stopped) feel free. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

checkY Done. all serials up to and including Survival. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! By any chance are you interested in adding reception to the classic series articles, creating/expanding a "broadcast and reception" section that will include the episode table that was previously in "Production"? (This is a standardizing measure I have been working on slowly but surely. I've got links to online sources.) Glimmer721 talk 00:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of title screens in Season article infoboxes

User:Werieth has commented out the use of the Diamond logo title screen in the infoboxes of these seasons citing WP:NFC#UUI #14 which states that is unacceptable to use a non-free logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), if it is used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event.

I'm not sure if that applies to TV seasons/series, but wanted to check here. It seems to have been common practice to use the title screen for seasons which do not have a season-encompassing box set release. Is this against policy? I wanted to check here first before reverting (other users have already reverted and have been reverted themselves) - I don't want to start an edit war.. --Etron81 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it. I can sort of see why using it in many articles would appear unacceptable, but based on your summary of #14 it doesn't seem to fit that rationale. Glimmer721 talk 21:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
From an NFC standpoint, if the season otherwise does not have an identify cover, then in the seasons where a new titlecard is introduced, that new card can be used (with the season article noting this -that's the justification to allow non-free); for seasons that reuse the previous season's card, it is typically not considered appropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GA

Hi, If anyone has spare time there is a lot that needs done to the Doctor Who article see Talk:Doctor_Who/GA2 to make it a Good Article if anyone could help me I would be much appreciated. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, in response to my comment at Talk:Doctor Who/GA2, I've made a rough outline at User:Glimmer721/sandbox/Doctor Who outline. I'd really like to help although I may not have all the sources (books are extremely valuable in this case as are DVDs which I do have a few of) but we could start and then bring attention to the rest of the project. Doing one section and starting with the easier ones at a time would be a good way to start. What do you think? Glimmer721 talk 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That is a great idea having a rough outline, I would really appreciate your help. I also do not have every book/DVD, I have added a few reference over the last few days most of them I found on the BBC Classic Doctor Who Site. I will post your message and my message on Wikiproject Doctor Who Talk page and then we can see how many other people would like to help. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah if anyone is interested in doing research from materials they have or focusing on a particular section, it would help out a lot. Any input into structure would too. It can't quite have the structure of most TV show articles, but it needs to be easy to navigate. Glimmer721 talk 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

John Hurt Doctor

There has been an article created on the john hurt doctor. feels a bit premature to me. any opinions before I AFD it? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fire at will. Mezigue (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominated here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Doctor => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who DVD Files

Recently someone went through all of the serials pages adding (unreferenced) text stating when the serial was released as a part of this partwork. Personally I don't think that there is much merit in its inclusion (with or without references).

On top of that I'm tempted to nominate the main article for deletion. It reads like an advert and I'm not sure it's strictly notable enough. any thoughts? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is an advertisement:
(a) there is no merit with or without references, and
(b) go-ahead and take it to afd!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 10:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominated here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who DVD Files => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have copy-edited and added my name ... hope you don't mind ...
Well done!
— Gareth Griffith-Jones| The Welsh Buzzard: Cardiff born and bred | — 16:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
My thanks as well S. I removed the mention from some articles that were added by one IP as unsourced but there may have been more IPs making the same edit so others will want to be on the outlook for them. MarnetteD | Talk 17:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been removing them where I've come across them. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a question about this. Their website's main function looks to be selling their DVDs. Are these in any form official releases sanctioned by the BBC? If so the might merit mention on the regular Dr Who DVD and bluray release article. If not they probably should be removed and the article deleted as a sales vehicle. If any of you can answer this it would be a help in giving us an idea how to proceed. MarnetteD | Talk 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
not that it's considered a reliable source but there's this => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It would seem to answer my question. I would like to hear what other editors think. MarnetteD | Talk 19:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it was me who went round editing things. I did it because I thought that as it was a release of that story, it deserved at least a sentence in the releases section. I think there in an archive (login may be required) if souces were needed. Not entirely sure though. Sorry if I was a nuisance, just trying to help. Tommatkencaz (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I remember this partwork being launched, I think I first heard about it through Doctor Who Online. Here are some notes that I made at the time:
The Doctor Who DVD Files: A bi-weekly magazine titled The Doctor Who DVD Files is currently in the course of publication; it commenced on Wed 14 Jan 2009, and is published by GE Fabbri. Each issue consists of a loose-leaf "magazine" and a DVD. The first issue was priced significantly lower than the remainder; and as an incentive to continue buying, the next three issues included "free gifts":
  2. a ring binder;
  3. a set of subject divider cards;
  4. the "Classic Series" DVD of The Five Doctors (Special Edition).

It is also available on subscription, at a slightly reduced price; subscribers also received:

  • a storage box (described as "DVD Holder") to hold 14 DVDs (this box was also sold separately);
  • the "Classic Series" DVD of The Movie;
  • three character figures (chosen at random from six).

Each DVD (other than the two "Classic Series" DVDs) had two episodes (with subtitles but no other extras), and was enclosed in a full-size 14.5 mm case. The episodes were presented in correct chronological order, and so occasionally a two-part story was split over two DVDs, for example issue 2 (28 Jan 2009) included "Aliens of London", and issue 3 (11 Feb 2009) included "World War Three". The covers are specially designed for this series, but the general style is similar to that of the normal retail "New Series" DVDs. The two "Classic Series" DVDs also had normal 14.5 mm cases, and special covers to harmonise with the others in the series - these covers are completely different from the normal "Classic Series" releases. They each had the normal complement of extras for those DVDs.

The "magazine" had approximately 8 A4 size and 2 A3 size full colour sheets (24 pages), which were intended to separated out and inserted into a binder, this binder being given out with issue 2, and seven subject dividers with issue 3, colour-coded to match the categories printed at upper left of each sheet. In the case of the "Episode Guide" category (red), there were always two sheets in the magazine, one for each episode on the DVD; whereas for the other categories, there was one sheet - these were usually only loosely related: for example the "Davros" sheet (belonging to the "Enemies" category) was included in issue 1, although the character of Davros would not appear on any DVD until issue 27.
Not definitive, I know. But I doubt that it would have been allowed to continue for so long if it did not have official BBC sanction. Some friends of mine did buy the first few, and then they got a subscription: it worked out cheaper than buying the official BBC releases. They were under the impression that the partworks would cease after about a year or so, when it had caught up to the broadcast stories; but then it continued with the Classic Series, and so they cancelled because their children (aged 13 down to 8 at the time) weren't interested any more - not having seen these stories on TV. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has collected this partwork from the beginning, I doubt that it isn't sanctioned by the BBC as they would probably have done something to stop it by Issue 125 (most recent issue). Plus, there was an advertisement on TV when the first issue was released, so if they weren't sanctioned by the BBC, I doubt they'd be obviously plastering their partwork all over the TV. Just my thoughts. Tommatkencaz (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the article was speedy-deleted. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean we should remove it from everything then? It's in all the new series pages too... Glimmer721 talk 21:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Late reply but the answer is yes. I have been removing it from "See also" sections when I come across it. If it has entries in the "Home media" sections I would also say yes. Seeing as how they are vanilla releases (ie no extras) I don't think they merit a mention. Now that is just my opinion if others feel differently then please add your thought and we can come to a consensus. MarnetteD | Talk 18:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
IMO the only place it belongs is the subsection of the List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases where it is currently mentioned => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

unused template

I've just stumbled across this template (Template:DoctorWhoCompanions) which appears not to be used (as there are other templates for companions. Do we want it (and therefore actually add it to the articles) or do we dump it? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 22:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd be in favour of using that one over the other, extremely messy template that doesn't aid navigation very well and goes against navigation template guidelines. But I tried to implement it once before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 23#Companion navigational templates) and it didn't really reach a conclusion. –anemoneprojectors– 16:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary celebration

As part of the golden anniversary celebration, and for those who might enjoy it, the Word of the Day on the English Wiktionary will be Who-related every day this month. Some words will be easy to connect to Who, such as auton, which kicks off the month, or canine, which will be WotD on the 3rd. For the über-fan, try to place the more obscure ones, like tell it to the marines, which is WotD for the 2nd. And no, you can't just look ahead at the monthly list and see all the words now; they're deliberately not all up yet. You may have fun seeing words that you didn't know were words outside of Who. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Not sure if "tell it to the marines" is relevant to the show. Not in the classic series anyway. Did van Statten or someone else say it in "Dalek"? The famous phrase is the Brigadier saying "Chap with the wings there. Five rounds rapid" but I doubt that there is anything at Wiktionary would be able to link to for that. As to canine - well K9 is something quite different but at least he did get TARDIS trained at some point :-) Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 05:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"Tell it to the marines" is a quote from the Doctor, upon which a plot point hinges in one classic series story. That's all I'll say for now; it's part of the fun to guess the story. Most won't be that obscure, but a few of them will be challenges to place. For the first several years of WotD on Wiktionary, I was the coordinator, and I put up a relevant word on 23 Nov most years. These may give you a feel for what's coming this month. For example, in 2008 the word on the 23rd was shadda; last year it was yowzah (an 11th Doctor quote); and in 2007 it was kismet (also the name of Roger Delgado's wife). --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Good stuff thanks for cluing me in to the fact that I have to rummage through my memories of classic series episodes. It is probably too obvious to use but the 11th Doctors "Fezzes are cool" will be remembered for a loooong time. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to rummage through your memories - it's available on DVD if that helps --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
That does help a bit since it eliminates the episodes that only exist as CD soundtracks but all the other stories, except the two recently found Troughton era tales, are now on DVD so my memory search is still immense. I just know I am going to have to do a facepalm when I finally remember which story it is :-) MarnetteD | Talk 19:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
On Wiktionary, we create entries for words, terms, set phrases, and proverbs that meet certain inclusion criteria, and tell it to the marines is a saying that has been around for well over a century with an idiomatic meaning. It therefore makes a suitable entry for Wiktionary, and can thus be featured as Word of the Day. The word fez might show up, but the quote "Fezzes are cool" would not be a suitable Wiktionary entry, and so could not be Word of the Day. It might make a suitable Wikiquote item, but I'm not as familiar with Wikiquote.
...and that raises an interesting point. Wikiquote has oodles of quotes both from and about Doctor Who, but no Quote of the Day has been nominated yet for the 23rd of November. An enterprising soul might want to select one for the anniversary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we need another navbox?

It would be quite good if we could get a navbox for the following articles:

There are several character navboxes, for the incarnations of the Doctor, the companions, different species and villains, but none for these other characters. A "recurring characters" navbox, perhaps? Or maybe several navboxes need merging into a "Doctor Who characters" navbox - it certainly wouldn't be huge, even if it included all the companions that have articles (I tend to think this Project has a few too many navboxes). –anemoneprojectors– 16:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And here's an example of that - User:AnemoneProjectors/Template:Doctor Who characters –anemoneprojectors– 16:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, no. I could see one for UNIT members (maybe morphing the current UNIT stories template) because there is reasonably expectation to navigate between these elements; otherwise, because of the loose association, this should be in a category of DW Characters. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

TFA for the 50th anniversary?

As far as I can see, there are only two Doctor Who FAs yet to appear on the main page: "The Stolen Earth" and "Partners in Crime". If anyone would like to suggest something to mark the 50th anniversary at WP:Today's featured article/requests, please do so soon. If anyone's planning to get another article to FA-standard in time, there's not long left... Any problems/questions, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 12:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I wanted the main Doctor Who article to become a featured article again, I did nominate it for a good article see Talk:Doctor Who/GA2, I think the episode Rose (Doctor Who) is worthy for a good article, I did nominated it but no reviewer has taken it on as of yet. It would also be good if An Unearthly Child was made into a featured article. I would be willing to help on any article just message me. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Even if Doctor Who reaches FA standard again, it cannot be TFA on 23 November, because it's been TFA before - on 16 December 2004 (when it looked like this). See WP:TFA/R#Adding requests: --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Eleventh Hour" was on my list but I'm not really that comfortable working on it and there's not much time for FAC. I suppose "The Stolen Earth" would be fine; Sydney Newman is ideal but he's already been featured. What does everyone else think? Glimmer721 talk 17:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Verity Lambert, obviously. Currently B-class; has been GA before (delisted January 2008) but never made it to FA. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I looked at Verity but we have issues with referencing, with books without page numbers, cites to IMDB and dead links; I added a couple of {{fact}} tags as well. It's also a little short - are there better sources out there? My two FAs took nearly two months at FAR; even if Verity was ready now, it would be touch and go that it would be promoted in time. Edgepedia (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the two FAs we have, I favour "The Stolen Earth". @Sceptre:, you took both to FAR, what do you think? Edgepedia (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
My original (and by now, four year old plan) was for "The Stolen Earth" to be TFA on November 23rd, mostly because of the "750th" episode thing. It's a shame The Day of the Doctor will be #799! Sceptre (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah "The Stolen Earth/Journeys End" is one of the greatest episodes and they way it ties Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures and brings all the characters together this is what the 50th anniversary episode should be like if not better. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, based on the above I will nominate The Stolen Earth for TFA on over lunch. Edgepedia (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Nom is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#November 23, please comment there. Edgepedia (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There's a dead external link (ref 72) referencing that the title was only revealed two weeks before broadcast. Anyone have an alternative reliable source? Edgepedia (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across Doctor Who this morning thinking that something really should go on the front page for 23 November. Recent changes to Did you know? policy allow an article recently promoted to GA status, and it will also aid it towards being promoted in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. I think a TFA, a DYK (maybe the fact that Verity Lambert didn't want it to be a series about "bug eyed monsters"?) and a OTD for 23 November isn't taking the piss too much, is it? There is a GA already active here, but it seems to have stalled without much progress. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Big Finish: TV canon

Just to remind or inform people: the Big Finish audio plays have been openly integrated into canon now, although their canonical status was, as some BF forum regulars have pointed out, confirmed back in 2000; the airing of "Night of the Doctor" and Nick Brigg's statements additionally enforce this. Sceptre (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is highly subjective, not least for the fact that the showrunners since 2005 have been at pains to deny the existence of a Doctor Who canon, while continuing to ironically use canon as a shorthand for continuity. I think Nick's comment may be a little more tongue in cheek than you think, he certainly comes across to me as pretty deadpan. The hat tip to McGann's off-screen adventures by naming some of the companions in his BF adventures doesn't change much. Rankersbo (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
What Rankersbo said. There is no Dr Who canon (see Whoniverse#Inclusion_and_continuity for details). Any references to a Who canon are not encyclopaedic, as has been repeatedly agreed in other editing decisions. WP:OUTUNIVERSE is the key guideline here. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New series soundtrack article titles - proposed moves

This would also effect the Torchwood releases:

I previously brought this up in 2010, but didn't get around to moving them (real life got inthe way) . Anyhoos, I think we should move the article titles to reflect the titles at Silva Screen's Webite as that is what most retailers are listing them as so they would be the common titles, as well as simplifying the titles for search purposes.

Etron81 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about the names of those articles. Given the lack of reliable source citations, I wonder whether these articles are notable. Improving those articles to demonstrate notability seems more pressing! Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks

I wanted to so a great big thanks to everyone that has worked on Wikipedia's Doctor Who articles over the years. I wish I could ping each and every one of you, be it editors who were here when I started editing over eight years ago and have moved on to other things (or retired) or those of you who are toiling away right this moment, but that would take up a lot of room on this page. Thus, I will just leave this note and I will also say that I hope that all of you have a fun and memorable 50th anniversary week. Cheers and have a jelly baby on me. MarnetteD | Talk 05:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox cast list at Doctor Who (film)

This issue has come up again. Please see Talk:Doctor Who (film)#Infobox cast list again. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot

Anyone want to start an article on The Five(ish) Doctors Reboot? Watch it here; it was 'secretly' put online after DOTD aired. Internet is already buzzing. (It is briliant BTW.) — Edokter (talk) — 02:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I see it's already there (didn't pop up in the search bar). — Edokter (talk) — 02:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Chronology for infoboxes on Eighth Doctor and Ninth Doctor

Hello, I semiprotected the pages in question for a week to prevent people from changing the chronology randomly hundreds of times in the following days. I assume based on the context of the infobox that the "chronology" parameter refers to the order in which the characters appeared on screen and as such I reverted it to the version of the infobox prior to the recent episode (and I left the rather snarky comment in one of them intact). I don't personally care whether you go for in-universe chronology or real life chronology, but I think it would be a good idea to decide and decide soon which you want to do and put comments to that effect in the infoboxes in question. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Thingg⊕⊗ 02:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, on Doctor (Doctor Who). Thingg⊕⊗ 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thirteen Doctors?

Okay, so it's been revealed that thirteen Doctors have gone through the universe. How are we going to go about the articles from Ninth Doctor onwards? --JB Adder | Talk 09:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Leave them as they have been before the emergence of the War Doctor! This is about seasons and series. It is not about one-off specials and in this instance we have the name, "War Doctor". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, as has been pointed out before, we wait for the secondary sources: we do not make our own interpretations of what we saw in the primary sources. WP:NOR. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I was about to come back and say ignore the previous question. (It was made in haste, before I finished watching the episode and taking a Wikiwalk through the related articles.) I read through some of the articles (and finally had a look at the webisode); they refer to John Hurt's Doctor as the War Doctor, so I'm not going to debate it. Pretend I didn't ask, or just slap me upside the head; I'll leave the choice to you. --JB Adder | Talk 11:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Huh! The episode clearly did not hold your attention then, did it?
Were you bored? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Our most important articles are a mess

Doctor Who and Doctor (Doctor Who) are both in a bad shape. Years of being added to with every fictional example of things that have happened to the title character have wrecked them. In the article about the show, the writing goes into copious detail about the biological process of regeneration, rather than quickly glossing the term and discussing in real world terms the various casting decisions that went on. I think the recent confusion about whether John Hurt should feature partially stems from this inconsistency — editors cannot clearly see from these articles how Wikipedia writes about the fictional aspects of Doctor Who. As far as they're concerned, articles about the Doctor are biographies of an alien who happens to be fictional.

Fixing these problems probably means entire sections of both articles probably need to be deleted ("Revelations about the Doctor," "Age," "Romance," "Discontinuities"). We practically need to raze the Earth and start again, building with sources. I'm happy to lend a hand to this project - I just had a go at changing "Changing faces" to "Lead actors" on the Doctor Who page and reorganising some of the text there - but is anyone else on board to assist with this going forward?Zythe (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who recently failed a FAC. My concerns there apply to the comments by Zythe above, but also to my thread below. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I recently made a rough proposed outline for updated the Doctor Who article here. It requires quite a bit of work and reference material, but it sure is doable. Glimmer721 talk 02:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Images at An Unearthly Child

All three images at An Unearthly Child are non-free content, and all have been put up for non-free content review. This could set a precedent since pretty much every article on a Classic Series serial also has two or three non-free images. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Some other screenshots and book covers have been sent to WP:NFCR or to WP:FFD. I suggest that everybody puts Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts on their watchlists. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Page Views

Some figures on the page views from last weekend

Article Friday (22) Saturday (23) Sunday (24) Stats Link
Doctor Who 588,994 535,832 264,577 [3]
List of Doctor Who serials 53,001 93,321 109,293 [4]
Eleventh Doctor 13,821 25,721 27,015 [5]
The Stolen Earth 910 15,306 6,545 [6]

Edgepedia (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Also note that my DYK nomination of War Doctor and Night of the Doctor topped the all time stats. See here. Thanks, Matty.007 19:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_28&oldid=1142155762"