In the past few series (at least in 7), the BBC had provided a title card for each episode, making it the clear ideal candidate for a NFC image to identify the episode within the infobox (meeting the general standard of WP:NFCI#1. In S9, I have not seen this practice continued, so I do see editors pulling a screencap from the episode as a infobox image (for example Face the Raven). However, I have noticed that media sites reviewing the episode seem to have a clear promotional image to identify the episode (eg: [1] for the same ep). I would strongly recommend that if the BBC does not pull out a title card, that these promo images be used instead since if the BBC is letting other press use that to ID the episode, that works for our purposes. To contrast, the current image on this is one that can be easily considered unnecessary since it shows elements that are easily described in text or other free images. I have not fully explored the BBC site to see what media images they do offer per episode but I suspect that you'd be able to find those images there too. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Utilising widely available promotional images, specifically designed by the BBC to distil key elements and/or characters in an episode, looks to be a logical choice and avoid many of the issues associated with screen grabs and the like. A good call, I would say. Bowdenford (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Radio Times is a BBC publication, so they're most likely at least semi-official. They also look nicer than the promotional images. Sceptre(talk)12:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Not any more, the BBC sold it to Immediate Media Company London Ltd a few years ago, which is why you get so many articles on non-BBC shows nowadays. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The standard which seems to have been set for New Series infobox images is to use photographs/screen grabs rather than artistic representations, so the Radio Times posters would be a departure from that. Whether that would be a good thing or not is debatable. For encyclopaedic articles, I'm not sure that 'looking nicer' should be a determining factor. Wikipedia isn't completely blind to aesthetic considerations, but I would venture that there are more important considerations to be taken into account. Bowdenford (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking strictly from an NFCC standpoint, if the BBC has published an official title card for an episode (ala Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS), that is the most appropriate image since it is being used to show the marketing and branding used for the episode by the official copyright publishers. When we resort to a screenshot, we are introducing a potential bit of original research in deciding what is the most appropriate single shot of the episode to depict the episode. This is generally okay in lieu of anything official, but when there is an official image, we should be preferring those. Whether, in the S9 cases, that is the Radio Times posters, images that can be found directly off the BBC website as their promotional materials for an episode, or from a third-party website like AV Club or the like that has the press-image package, that's a point for discussion, but we should always try to use a publisher-selected image over an editor selected one, with common sense exceptions. For example, in the case of Face the Raven which is a user-selected image, compared to the lead image here which is clearly a BBC promo material, we should be using the BBC image as it shows the same elements and more. In the case of Heaven Sent (Doctor Who), the BBC's top image here [2] seems rather bland compared to other scenes so there may be some debate on a better image, though presently I'm not 100% sure if the current infobox image is the best replacement. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Navboxes
I trying to simplyfy navigation by removing unnecessary groups in several navboxes, (ie. {{Dalek stories}}), but am reverted by a single editor (and an IP) that don't get the message and demand consensus, but no counter arguments. So let's settle this here. I think the grouping by Doctor is unnecessary and basically cruft. It does not aid navigation and only bloats the template, as it often results in one episode per group. So barring any valid objections, I will reinstate my edits by the end of the week. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
So, a single editor and an IP have reverted you, also a single editor. I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to make; we are all editors, after all, and it’s not as if your edits carry any more weight or authority than anyone else’s, is it. Or are you trying to argue otherwise? Be that as it may, I can't speak for the IP involved but personally I get the message loud and clear, thank you; I simply don't agree with it. Neither has anyone 'demanded' consensus as you falsely claim; requests have been made that it be ascertained. Is there something wrong with that? I thought that was the Wikipedian way and you have never shied away from referencing the consensus principle in support of your edits and position, as your posts here, for instance, will attest.
The above notwithstanding, you have made several claims regarding the editing of the navboxes in question which don’t seem to stack-up.
You state here that your ‘simplification’ is in line with common practice on Wikipedia. Having checked a goodly number of navboxes, however, I haven’t been able to substantiate this. From an analysis of the seventy-seven items listed at Doctor Who navigational boxes, for instance, it appears that listing the contents ‘by Doctor’ occurs more frequently than not.
You state that the ‘listing by Doctor’ format often results in one episode per group. It’s true that it sometimes results in one episode per group, but is that sufficient reason to change those navboxes where this does not apply or, indeed, any navboxes at all? ‘Simplification’ does not automatically equate to ‘better’. The existing format provides more granularity and superior navigation for those wishing to ascertain the relationship between the listed items and a particular Doctor. Reference to ‘bloat’ (or ‘space-wasting‘ as you have also called it) really carries the argument nowhere unless you can qualify these comments by explaining in what manner the affected space is limited, and what might be done with any which is saved.
Regarding the categorisation of ‘listing by Doctor’ as fancruft, I do not agree that the use in navboxes meets the criteria. Further, cruft can exist very much in the eye of the beholder and depend upon an observer’s knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, the subject. I mean no disrespect and personally find such matters interesting, but would struggle to understand why the Project, which enjoys robust and lengthy debate regarding such diverse topics as Should the Doctor Who Doctors image include John Hurt's War Doctor??? and Doctor Who (series 9) would even bat an eye at the use of the existing format, let alone calling it cruft. I would thus argue that utility outweighs any latent cruftiness, which should not be a consideration in this instance.
To close, just to clarify the matter for you, setting out your opinion and then stating that unless there are any ‘valid objections’ (although who is to be the arbiter of ‘validity’ is unclear) you will reinstate your edits isn’t obtaining consensus. I remain unpersuaded by your argument and consequently, your declaration notwithstanding, at the time of writing and pending the input of others, no consensus pertains. Bowdenford (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Having read the above (twice), you haven't provided any arguments to support the current format; only that it is the current format, and that you like to maintain this format as the status quo. That is not much of an argument; you need to explain why the current formatting is better. I explained why the current formatting is bad and needs to change. We simplyfy things all the time; look at the companions navboxes for example. As for the fancruft; yes it still exists, and mainly consists of trying to cram often redundant information in places where they do not belong, such as which Doctor an episode belongs to in navboxes.
Please review WP:NAVBOX and understand its purpose. They are used to navigate related articles; and are not ment for organizing information. So yes... barring any valid objections, I will make these navboxes more in line with the rest of Wikipedia. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it would appear that reading my response twice was insufficient for you to apprehend the salient points. Allow me summarise, then.
If I have followed you correctly (my apologies if not) your rationale for the change is that simplification is ipso facto an improvement, the existing format does not aid navigation, it constitutes cruft and it wastes space.
My argument is that simplification is not ipso facto an improvement; improvement needs to be demonstrated. The existing format aids navigation for readers interested in tracking down further information regarding where the items listed have interacted with a particular Doctor. The categorisation as cruft is mistaken and subjective. Space wasting can only be a factor if the space taken by the navbox is limited in some way and it can be shown that it could be put to better use if the item were smaller.
I am not resistant to change and have no interest in maintaining the status quo. My objections are based upon the belief that the changes you wish to introduce are not supported by your arguments for them, will not result in an improvement and that the current format is more useful for navigation than the version you propose will be. You say that your changes will render these navboxes more in line with the rest of Wikipedia. My review of navboxes indicates otherwise, although I fear that verifying your claim by examining all of the project will take far longer than the time limit you have imposed. I can find no guidance indicating that consideration of these matters should be conducted to a deadline but, in the absence of a consensus view you are, of course, entirely free to edit navboxes in any way you see fit at any time you choose. Just like me, then. Bowdenford (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Requiring a wall of text to make your point is not helpfull. Also, I alraedy pointed WP:OTHER, so your arguments referring to other projects has no bearing. My only concern is navigation; these are "navboxes" after all. "improvement needs to be demonstrated"? You couldn't be more wrong. Improvements are self-evident; otheriwse they would not be improvements, would they? So yes, I still intend to remove the superflous groups. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}10:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You ask me to explain my position then criticise me for doing it. That you consider my response to constitute a 'wall of text' is your opinion, to which you are entitled but with which I disagree. I have taken the space required to set out my arguments in a logical fashion, using formatting, paragraphs and indenting to assist the reader. In any event, this is irrelevant to the points at hand.
Again, you make a false claim. I have not made any arguments referring to other projects; the project I am clearly referring to is the Wikipedia project.
It is you who first introduced WP:OTHER in support of your position, or am I supposed to draw some other inference from your statements "My edits bring the Daleks/Davros (and others) more in line with common practice on Wikipedia..." and "I will make these navboxes more in line with the rest of Wikipedia"? I consider that you have now successfully argued, however, that how navboxes are formatted and dealt with elsewhere on Wikipedia should have no bearing, so let us have no more of that.
You are predicating your future editing of navboxes (and everything else, one must suppose), on the basis that "Improvements are self-evident; otheriwse (sic) they would not be improvements, would they?" On the assumption that you are not joking I am lost for words, other than to say that in my experience this claim would not normally be categorised as constituting logical discourse, reasoned debate or a sound basis for making any decisions at all.
So yes, in the absence of a consensus view you are, of course, entirely free to edit navboxes in any way you see fit at any time you choose. Just like me, then. Bowdenford (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
"I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to make; we are all editors, after all, and it’s not as if your edits carry any more weight or authority than anyone else’s" - I'm glad someone finally reminded Edokter of that. Edokter - you need to remove that over inflated admin head of yours and actually work with other people instead of assuming that everyone else is trying to ruin wiki, and that you are always right. 213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, although I haven't read all of this discussion, I agree with this version of the Dalek stories template. Navboxes are not for organising information, just for linking related articles. Many Doctor Who navboxes are messy or unnecessary (Doctor Who companions probably being the worst!), and ideally I'd like to see this become a template, merging the navboxes for Doctors (and I guess the actors, since that one was recently merged), companions, villains and species. AnemoneProjectors (Peter O'Connor)10:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; your input is most welcome. Providing an opinion without reading all of the discussion does rather limit the impact, however. It would be useful if, as well as expressing support for a particular position, you could rebut the points being raised in support of the opposing view. It's not that I'm immovably attached to the current navbox format come what may, it's simply that I have yet to see a logical argument for making the proposed changes which has withstood close scrutiny. I'm thus hoping that the debate can be raised above the level of one side reasoning that for an action to be an improvement the benefit must be apparent without requiring additional explanation (and so, by extension, that an action taken where the benefit is not self-evident cannot be an improvement but instead must be something else). At least, I think that's what Edokter is saying. I must admit to difficulty in following an argument when logic gets parked back at the chalet and the discourse goes off-piste. Bowdenford (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I had read the majority, and have now read it all, but I don't think I have anything to add to what Edokter has already said, at this time. I'm afraid I wasn't much help other than supporting what he has said, which is basically what I wanted to do, because I think he has interpreted WP:NAVBOX correctly. AnemoneProjectors13:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Doctor parameter
I reckon, to make the infoboxes for Doctor Who episodes say Doctors, as opposed to Doctor (singular) when the is more than one Doctor in an episode, that the paramters are changed slightly, by possibly adding a doctor2 parmeter, or the existing parameter becomes the place for the incumbent Doctor only, while a new parameter, called doctor_extra or something, is added for the Doctor(s) who was(were) either not the incumbent Doctor or the Doctor who was not the main Doctor for the episode, e.g. the newly regenerated Doctor at the end of an epsiode for example, the Twelfth Doctor in "The Time of the Doctor".Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 20:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The existing link gives an error message (e.g. see the article Zeta Major). This affects a LOT of articles. I don't know how to fix it, but I hoped someone here might. Robina Fox (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The template is working fine. All articles link to the proper pages on drwhoguide.com. Maybe the site was down for some time. If you still get an error, check the |id= parameter. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}20:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The links to the individual book articles do work fine, but I was referring to the second link the template puts up, the one to the Doctor Who Reference Guide as a whole, which goes to http://www.drwhoguide.com , resulting in the message: "Directory Listing Denied / This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed". That doesn't sound like being down. It doesn't sound like "you are outside our area" either, though I suppose it could be that. Robina Fox (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
That's a server message. It means that you have specified a URL that doesn't specify an exact page, however the URL does point to a directory that exists, but which doesn't contain a file named index.html or similar. In such situations, most browsers will attempt to list the files which do exist in that directory, to aid you in finding a relevant page; but the server can deny access to the list, which is what has happened here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. But wouldn't it be better for the link to go to an actual index, the /who.htm that I gave above? But maybe that just can't be done. Robina Fox (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
The picture in the infobox for the Fourth Doctor article has been deleted. The Byzantine rules for pics have always been impenetrable for me so if any of you can add a new pic that meets the guidelines that would be wonderful. Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD|Talk15:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The rules at Commons are stricter. A rough guide might be that if the image would warrant a WP:FUR on Wikipedia - such as depictions of fictional characters like the Fourth Doctor - then Commons won't allow it under any circs. Upload it to Wikipedia instead, give it a cast-iron FUR, and ensure that all ten clauses of WP:NFCCP are complied with. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the posts R and GL. By coincidence there is a thread at ANI where the template is mentioned - it is {{Do not move to Commons|reason=}}. I hope that this is of help in this situation. MarnetteD|Talk12:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. There is an ongoing debate over the configuration of series 9 episodes on the series 9 talk page. AlexTheWhovian is confident that a single statement from DWM proves that episodes 11 and 12 are not a two-part story, despite the evidence from many other official sources (most notably the DVD and DW Extra releases) that state otherwise. Several IP users and myself believe that he has interpreted the DWM source incorrectly, hence his point of view on this debate. Could some project members please contribute to this discussion? Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98talk02:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
When you start a discussion for the opinions of unbiased viewers, you should do so with a neutral point of view, not a "this person is wrong because of other stuff, and I think I'm right" view. Just saying. Alex|The|Whovian?05:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey everyone! I My user name is Gen. Quon, and I'm a user pretty active in the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time fandoms (I also a Who fan). Anyway, I have a request. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis that focuses on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. I'm particularly interested in how fan editors aggregate and define 'canon'. Are there any editors here that would be willing to partake in a short (roughly 10) question interview via email or talk page? Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon(Talk)22:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting! So, in the context of the Doctor Who fandom, canon is based more on what the BBC officially releases, rather than what one person has to say?--Gen. Quon(Talk)17:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Canon isn't really a meaningful concept in Doctor Who. Any new episode/novel/audio/comic is free to reference any previous one (and often do), but they're also perfectly free to ignore or contradict anything they like (and they often do that, too). Generally, contradicting an existing TV episode is seen as a bit more significant than ignoring an obscure spin-off, and would be more likely to incorporate some narrative attempt to account for the changes, but there are literally no hard-and-fast rules. The fact that the show doesn't have a single creator definitely contributes to this, as does the fact that many of the original creators are dead – by outliving them, the show escaped any clear authority. —Flax518:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It's kind of a free-for-all, really. There's a vague agreement that TV stuff is more important to cover than non-TV stuff, but there are so many grey areas and so many stories that it basically comes down to the decisions of individual editors. Look at The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Family, for instance – the sources and media are all over the place, and it's completely unreferenced. The Doctor Who universe is very anarchic, and pretty much the opposite of Star Wars in a lot of ways. —Flax521:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. This is all very interesting. One thing I guess I'm wondering is, if it's all kind of up in the air, how did you all come to the consensus that the Peter Cushing version of Who isn't canon?--Gen. Quon(Talk)01:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Peter Cushing is the lead actor in the movies. The other actors are mentioned in their respective real-world places, such as William Hartnell et al. being the lead actors in the television programme. Others, such as David Banks, are listed in things like stage plays, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, we do not decide what is canon or not. One of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia is that of no original research - we don't make decisions, we report on what others have already decided. Closely coupled to that is another core policy, that of verifiability - if we report that such-a-story is (or is not) canonical, we need to be able to point to a reliable third-party published source that actually says so. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate all your insights here. I have a hypothetical question to pose. Say that there is some bit of 'canon' reported by third-party sources, but Russell T. Davies, or Steven Moffat (or whoever else) makes a statement that contradicts what has been established. Would it be protocol to merely say in an article, "In X piece of media, this factoid is reported to have happened, but in an interview, showrunner Z said that this is not the case"?
Previous/next series not showing up in the infobox
For the 2005-on Doctor Who Series articles the Prev/next series is not displaying, even though it's in the code - the Classic Season articles display fine - not sure what's going on here? Is there a way to fix it? --Etron81 (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Restored. Purge the page if they're not appearing. My bad. Accidentally deleted them when implementing updates. However, soon they won't be necessary as the infobox will be updated to automatically calculate and include the links. Alex|The|Whovian?00:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as it can be manually overridden. That is, is "next_series" isn't included, it'd be blank (as Doctor Who (season 27) is a redirect), else we simply set "next_season" to "[[Doctor Who (film)|''Doctor Who'']] (special)<br>[[Doctor Who (series 1)|Series 1]] (series)" (as it currently is). Alex|The|Whovian?00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It was added in this edit, but has since been wikified (links added, quotemarks fixed). If it's a straight lift from the novel, a page number should be added; but if it's a quote from what Parkin has said in interview, WP:V and WP:BLP (search for "all quotations" in both) say that it should be sourced or removed. So if the publication carrying that interview can't be identified, zap the paragraph. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether or not "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are a two-parter and I would like to invite users to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Classic series page moves
A number of pages for serials in the Classic series have been moved by In ictu oculi (talk·contribs), apparently without discussion:
In each case the resultant redirect has been left "as is", without repurposing the article title. Should these be moved back? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm working through these but I'm happy to move them back (in fact I have put them back) if there's a reason why Doctor Who is genuinely the primary topic in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Temporarily moving them to an unambiguous title helps show how many incoming links are real hard links, and how many generated by templates. In this case I'd say it'd be difficult to show the absolute majority of references to "The Smugglers" or "The Gunfighters" in print books refers to the Doctor Who serials. See Smuggler (disambiguation) and Gunfighter (disambiguation). But if anyone objects then fine, leave it. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion about episode groupings is still on-going but is only between two editors including myself. I would like to invite users to join in to help reach a consensus. Fan4Life (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on a report for the Signpost. Would anyone on WikiProject Doctor Who like to talk about their work here? Please ping me or reply here. Thanks! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It is entirely WP:OR and is also a WP:ESSAY. Removal is the best option. There are plenty of other websites which allow this kind of thing and SP is encouraged to post their thoughts on one or more of them. MarnetteD|Talk20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I direct the project to the discussion at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Bill's inclusion? I've not received a reply to my latest entry here, and although users continue to revert Bill being added to the article I have not seen anyone providing a rationale as to why beyond "she hasn't appeared yet". I don't see why that means we should ignore the plethora of verifiable sources for this information. U-Mos (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Continuity sections under individual episodes
I've noticed quite a few classic series episodes are attracting a certain amount of fancruft--Peri's bikini is 'the first seen since Sarah Jane Smith' was a doozy (my removal note says "now please take a cold shower"), but I'm not all that clear about what should be there sometimes. For the new series, editors appear to have been insisting on sources for every detail, but many of the classic series story articles are entirely unsourced, including the continuity. Also, some editors seem to be treating the books, comic books, audio plays, etc. as being about equal with the TV series, including follow-ups there. If that's allowed, surely the Continuity sections spiral completely out of control. I've heard of there having been some sort of discussion where the rules were set up for this, could someone point me in that direction? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you looking for a Doctor Who discussion - or something more generic for TV Shows in general? I thought I remembered reading something generic, but after having a look - I think I was mis-remembering WP:POPCULTURE - but I think some of the points it makes are similar for continuity sections. Cheers. Dresken (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
A simple rule for continuity sections on WP: they need to be points made by secondary sources, so that we're documenting what some other authority has stated to be continuity. We're not TV Tropes. Anything unsourced should be removed. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It was about Doctor Who episodes in particular, as these are the only articles where I ever see Continuity sections. I had a read through previous discussions of the topic here (there have been several). I've been reluctant to remove sections wholesale till now, taking out only the most egregious unsourced silliness. I'll be more bold from now on, and, true to my name, burn all that which is unsourced with a fast fire. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's an example where I hesitate, and seek advice. I've removed some silly unsourced stuff from Terror of the Zygons, and it is now left with these sentences: This serial sees the departure of Harry Sullivan (Ian Marter). Marter would return to play Sullivan and his android duplicate in the fourth story of this season The Android Invasion.[1] He is mentioned in the Fifth Doctor serial Mawdryn Undead, in which he is said to be working for NATO.[2] In this adventure the Loch Ness Monster is identified as being the Skarasen — a cyborg weapon of the Zygons. The season 22 serial Timelash introduces the Borad, who is thrown back in time and also becomes the legendary creature.[3]" What I am concerned about is the sources used in the section, which appear to me to be primary, i.e., the serials themselves rather than secondary. Are they fine for the purpose or should this still be removed? (The stuff I did remove without hestiation included statements to the effect that this is part of a larger story arc (diction not actually used to get around the 'arc' controversy no doubt) which someone added to nearly all the episodes for this season and stuff about Ian Marter's novels--and believe it or not, that he is the last male companion till Adric--seriously, who the hell cares anyway and how could this even remotely be considered "continuity" even with a source? Definition of fanwankery.) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
The main answer for to poor quality of these articles is that a lot of (if not all) the classic series articles were written before current rules and guidelines existed/were finalised and they have just never been updated - while the new series ones in being written now therefore are being written to them. So chances are that a lot of the stuff will be rubbish that shouldn't be there. 2.124.86.240 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I found WP:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Manual_of_style has info on Continuity. Although for the "Sullivan" stuff: his departure could be noted elsewhere in the article (i.e. production). His return could be removed as I think it is not really relevant for this article. The mention in Mawdryn should just be removed - I fail to see how it is relevant to this article at all - if we are doing that we might as well list stuff like when the word "Terror" has been used in other Doctor Who episodes titles as well. The dual Loch Ness explanations seem like what I would expect from this section - but I would say need a secondary source to remain. Dresken (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I visited the the Doctor article and noticed that the infobox listed all of the actors who have portrayed The Doctor in the series, and Hurt was in a sub-section of that list. Can someone explain how someone who portrayed The Doctor in the series is not included in a list of the people portraying the character? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The infobox in the article The Doctor (Doctor Who) you are referring to clearly states that the main list of actors are the "Series Leads" - which John Hurt was not a series lead - he was a reoccurring guest star at best. You can also find plenty of discussion if you want something more in depth pretty quickly [4][5]. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
List of doctor who comic stories
The articles listing doctor who comic stories is massively out of date there's no mention of Titan comics in the 3rd 4th 8th 10th or 11th doctor articles and the articles on the 12th and 2nd doctor don't even exist 95.150.111.115 (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 31 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Please see The Tenth Planet#Music release. It is a mess MOS wise. OTOH it looks to have be supported by refs (though I could be wrong.) I can't tell if it should be spun off into its own article or just cleaned up by those of you who know what needs to be done. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with this is that the liner notes, which is the fallback on this matter, only mention a few episodes offhand. Unfortunately this leads to the tendency for original research/synthesis, as seen here. I think that the column should be removed as it's trivia. Comments? DonQuixote (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello.You may want to have a look at the aforementioned article which has just been created and subsequently PRODed. This actor is mainly remembered for playing Sladden in the BBC mini-serial Quatermass and the Pit, and he has played significant parts in 3 Doctor Who serials, along with numerous parts in numerous television shows. So there is some notability, and no doubt if this project thinks he is notable, he will stick. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Need another opinion on potential reliable source
I need a second opinion on whether or not this website could be a potential reliable source, that can be used for this WikProject. It looks like it might be a site compiled by a fan, however, I've used this site a lot, and there is little room to doubt it's authenticity. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As with pretty much any WP:SOURCE the answer is "It depends". It depends on what it is being used for and whether there is a better source for that information. For example: titles, production codes and airdates - I would suggest there are much more WP:RELIABLE sources. Which appears to leave the transcripts of episodes - which while interesting - are not likely to be very useful in writing articles. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The episode itself is already the best source for plot - see MOS:PASI. A transcripted version of the episode by definition does not add anything that is not contained within the episode itself. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. The page you linked says, "Avoid original research: unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia.". Does that mean it is unacceptable to watch the actual episode myself, review the article for said epsiode, and fill in/fix details regarding the plot? Also, do you mean, "The episode it's self is already the best source for plot"?, as in the episode it's self is an acceptable primary source, or another primary source which covers the plot of any episode in particular? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!19:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You can watch the episode and summarise it in a bare-bones summary. If you start analysing the plot or giving motivations to characters that weren't stated directly in dialogue or narration, then it's unacceptable original research. DonQuixote (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Don. The whole "Unpublished personal observation" being unacceptable is what made me think otherwise. Getting back to the point of this section, now. If I were to be in an discussion about the plot of an certain episode in particular, would it be more appropriate to point another editor to this site, rather than tell them to watch the episode? As an example, let's say an editor disagreed with my edit to the plot of "The Empty Child" (changed a minor detail about the Chula ship that Captain Jack Harkness used in the episode). They reverted me, telling me that this is incorrect, and is adamant that I am incorrect. They could take offense to my telling them to re-watch the episode, rather than directing them to a site which contains a text script of the episode, it's self. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball!20:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
They'll probably disagree with the website as well. The best thing to do is to have multiple people re-evaluate the episode and form a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
These may help with clarification about sources WP:WPNOTRSWP:PSTS. But basically any source type (primary, secondary, tertiary) might be acceptable to use depending on the circumstances of its use - Primary is fine for plot summary. Although I'm not sure a transcription could be described as a secondary source as it does not provide any "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" - it is basically a copy of the primary source. However if you are in discussion, by all means pointing someone to a transcription of the episode is fine - that helps the discussion move along quicker (if they think the transcription misrepresents the episode - then they can then go back to the episode). I've transcribed sections out of books and magazines into discussions when people don't have direct access to the source in question - its helpful for the discussion, but not needed for articles. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember reading The Book of the Still back in the day but it has been recently nominated for proposed deletion. Does anyone think they can impprove the article to acceptable notability guidelines?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 20:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 31/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Doctor Who, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
I have opened up a Conflict of interest investigation into the recent edits to the Eighth Doctor Adventures article. If anyone is interested in joining the discussion, feel free to express your input and insight into the matter.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
List of Doctor Who home video releases
Just letting other members of the WikiProject Doctor Who know that I have begun to restore the references for release dates of home media at List of Doctor Who home video releases. Afterwards, they should stay permanently, and not be removed after the media are released. There is no reason to do so, as the home media themselves cannot become primary sources for their release dates, unlike episodes and their credits. Cheers. -- AlexTW14:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
[6]. I don't think I agree 1400 words seems way too long. Anyone else have some thoughts? Also anyone have any problem with removing this from our WP:WHO/MOS "A common length is approximately ten words per minute, however this can be lengthened in the case of a complicated plot." and just relying on WP:TVPLOT. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It's most definitely too long, I agree. Doctor Who articles have always seemed exempt from the guidelines presented at MOS:TV in the past, so I've been trying my hardest to integrate the MOS into these articles, just as they would be integrated into any other article for a television series. So, I also agree with removing the line and basing out guidelines on WP:TVPLOT. Realistically, this whole Doctor Who Manual of Style probably needs an update, given that it was created in 2009, there have only been 15 edits to it since 2010, and MOS:TV has been updated multiple times within that timespan. -- AlexTW12:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I've spent a little time marking up issues in the black and white classic episodes and also the different Doctor articles so there is actually somewhere to go and find things to do. I'm hoping it will be helpful to better maintain articles as some issues have been around for a very long time. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
An IP is adding events to the plot section of The Tenth Planet(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that occur at the end of The Doctor Falls. It is akin to what happened after "The Name of the Doctor" aired. I have started a thread on the talk page and any input that anyone wishes to add will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk01:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I notice that Jodie Whittaker is currently classed as "Low-importance" in WikiProject Doctor Who. That seems incongruous for an actor who will be the lead - should it be higher importance, or does that have to wait until her episodes start to air? --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The on target site formerly at http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~ecl6nb/OnTarget/ has been down for a VERY long time (I think a year) - it used to go down between terms I think but came back in a month or two - it has not returned for some time. I was a very useful resource - does anyone know its status or if it has been archived anywhere? Almost every classic serial page links to it. Etron81 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Dealing with continuing in one serial/episode that is a major plot element of a latter serial/episode
Speaking to "Twice Upon a Time" (the latest special), while it follows in continuity directly from "The Doctor Falls", it also has significant plot hooks, more than just a reuse of casting, back to The Tenth Planet and "Hell Bent" (with plot elements from those coming back into play in "Twice"). In "Twice" we can call back to those (and source that), but it seems to me that it feels like "Twice" should be mentioned in both Tenth Planet and "Hell Bent", using the sources to explain why "Twice" is important in the show's continuity for them. But, I know this is not usually done so I'm trying to brainstorm if this makes sense and if so, where best to put that information in an episode article. --Masem (t) 16:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
About that scene in the Mind Robber where Zoe is clinging to the console and the camera lingers on Wendy Padbury's, um, prominent rear. has there been any scholarly or professional or feminist essays or critique on the implications of that scene (sexism, objectification, the gender politics)? And, if so, can a summary of the debate be added to the Mind Robber article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
"long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who" in the leads of revival-only articles?
This appears in the leads of a bunch of articles, and while it is technically true, for articles dealing specifically with the revived series it can be rather awkward unless readers come to the articles with prior knowledge of the franchise.
Clara Oswald for instance, doesn't mention that the show was cancelled and then revived a decade and some later, but runs straight from calling it a long-running series into saying she was introduced in "December 2012 in the show's seventh series". If a reader took this literally they would think "Wait, if it was in its seventh series five years ago, then it's only been running for about 12 years; that's not all that long".
Anyone think it would be better to say "in the seventh series of the modern revival of the show" or something? (I know my specific suggestion is rather clunky; I suspect this has probably been discussed before but no one could come up with a succinct and piffy way to write so we defaulted to the worst option because everyone disagreed with it equally.)
@Paul Benjamin Austin: The image is not hosted on English Wikipedia, but on Wikimedia Commons, so it's a commons matter. Their deletion policy is at c:COM:D. If you are certain that it is a copyright violation, and have found where the original is held, you can use the {{Copyvio}} template on the Commons file description page and a commons admin will attend to it forthwith. Alternatively, in the left-hand margin of the Commons file description page, there is a link "Nominate for deletion". If you click that, it will fire some JavaScript with a form that you can fill in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The current image is undoubtedly more suitable because the page is about William Hartnell, not about Hartnell's portrayal of the Doctor. Having said that (and possibly muddying the waters now!), since the picture it replaced was a BBC image issued at the time (1965) for publicity purposes and wasn't being used for commercial gain, wouldn't that mean there's no violation of copyright? Cybersub (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I think a lot of images (like the articles themselves) were done pre current regulations, and have just not been updated. Having said that, this particular image is not the best that could be used for girl in the fireplace. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:F51B:A180:B755:E5D3 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
This is just a notice that there is a draft for Segun Akinola at Draft:Segun Akinola until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- AlexTW16:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
US airing of Shada
BBC America aired the reconstruction of Shada (Doctor Who) on Thursday July 19. We need to form a WP:CONSENSUS on how this is to be handled in the article. For me this is not a broadcast of the original episodes since they were never completed so it doesn't belong in the infobox or the opening sentence. The later mention in the lead is fine as is the mention of the broadcast in the article. I just feel that this reconstruction is a different item from the original planned serial. For one thing it is not broken into six parts. There are also changes to the planned story including the fact that prisoners were to include an Ice Warrior and a Zygon. These are just my thoughts (and I my be off base in them) and input from the rest of you will be necessary to shape the info in the article. Thanks ahead of time for your input. MarnetteD|Talk00:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Can a better photo be substituted, perhaps the Air Australia purple flight attendant uniform? Whoever used the "Yugoslavian prostitute" outfit from Resurrection clearly needs to take a cold shower. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Are the episode table/list templates the best solution for these lists? removing the sorting function I think is a loss if one is looking for all audiobooks by a certain author, reader, doctor, etc. I also think combining the TV story number and target numbers in the same field is needlessly confusing. Should these table revert o what they were before
? be divided by publisher/doctor? something else? whated to get an idea of consensus before continuing. Etron81 (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Using the raw-code lists and tables results in not gaining the functionality and accessibility checks provided by the formal templates, and also results in a uniform monotonic layout that is not at all appealing to readers; in fact, it's far more confusing in the previous layout. You could say that sortability should be used in every usage of {{Episode table}}, to find the best director, or the most viewed episode, or a specific writer of a season or audiobook. That's why sortability was never introduced into it, because it's really just an outdated use. Personally, I don't see the usage or requirement for either the story number or target number in the tables, when you could easily find those in the episode article itself, but I decided against removing those. -- AlexTW13:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I was not aware of the accessibility issues of the old list - in that case, the story/Target numbers should probably be excised altogether, as they were there for sorting purposes - I don't think the number overall should be there either, as most of these releases were not numbered. As the sorting function is now gone, I think it best to split releases by publisher within the audio category (novelisation/original audiobook/novels, etc) ala List of Star Trek NovelsEtron81 (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Season infobox image
In February 2017, AlexTheWhovian replaced the infobox images of all classic seasons (excluding The Key to Time and The Trial of a Time Lord) from the show's logo to the DVD cover of the season's first serial (see here for an example). This appears to have been done without consensus, so I'd like to seek a general opinion of the matter here. I find that the DVD cover is not an accurate representation of the season, simply the first episode—cases such as season 12 and 19, where we have new season set releases, are an exception. – Rhain☔11:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
This was done to provide something season-specific to the articles and their infoboxes, instead of the logos that spanned multiple seasons, which is not meant to be due to them being non-free media and thus should only be used in a single article. If content that is more specific to a season becomes available, such as the season releases for Seasons 12 and 19, then that's even better. There was no issue with those changes at the time and no issue has been raised concerning it in the past 19 months since; in fact, this discussion feels rather pointy in the fact that it was raised directly after I reverted one of your edits. -- AlexTW11:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The logos (at least the first logo) are free on Commons, so if anything are favourable over the non-free DVD art. There is no statute of limitations on raising issues here—I disagreed with the change when it was made last year but didn't follow the project closely enough to suggest any changes, and your recent edit finally prompted me to create the discussion. In no way am I disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point; I suggest you read WP:POINT before throwing it at me. – Rhain☔11:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
That's one logo. The best standard is conformity; if we use one logo for the first few seasons, what do we do for the rest? The current solution, almost two years old, allows for conformity across all classical season articles. If all the seasons were released on Blu-ray now, I would happily nominate them all for deletion and upload the season covers, to match the revived era series articles. Also, I am not saying that you cannot dispute the edits, only that they are clearly being disputed because of our recent disagreement. (I have read it; If someone deletes from an article information which they call "unimportant" or "irrelevant", which you consider to in fact be important to the subject... (now read the bottom of the list, in which it is not exhaustive), one should not dispute other unrelated edits due to just being disgruntled.) -- AlexTW11:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I certainly see your point in regards to consistency, but I still feel as though the DVD cover of the first serial isn't the best choice as it only represents the first story. I'm personally more inclined to suggest a photo of the season's cast members (new image each season), but that brings with it other issues; alternatively, a mashup of all DVD covers, but that's also problematic. What are your opinions on those? Our disagreement prompted me to start this discussion, yes, but I'm not disputing the edits because of the disagreement; I've disagreed with the change for much longer than that. I think you're misinterpreting WP:POINT—I have, as the guideline suggests, "explain[ed] on the article's talk page why [I] feel the material merits inclusion", and I have not, as you suggest, "dispute[d] other unrelated edits". Not sure where you think I did that. – Rhain☔12:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Cast members should only be included in the casting section, and a mashup would be possible (e.g. the Doctor's article), but would take a lot of sourcing in the file documentation and would mostly become illegible since each individual cover would be too small in the infobox. On the topic of the cast, I believe the photos of Ford and Russell should be photos taken around the time of the airing of the season to reflect their actual appearance during the season, and the same for the BBC Television and Ealing Studios images. -- AlexTW12:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It's still possible to argue that cast members can fit within the infobox—guidelines aren't always set in stone—but I see your point. I threw together a quick example of a mashup and it's not too illegible, though I can't say the same for when it goes through Wikipedia's size and quality restrictions. I couldn't agree more with your comments on the actors and sets, but no free alternatives from the 1960s exist, so I'm afraid that's not possible. – Rhain☔12:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Ratings
Just a heads up, I've started to add {{Television episode ratings/consolidated}} to the revived series articles, including overnight data, consolidated differences and overnight/consolidated ranks. I'll likely only be doing these for the later series, where DWN has reported the ratings, as it became incredibly hard to find overnight data for the earlier series (mostly 1-4, and I still can't find overnight data for "Army of Ghosts" / "Doomsday"). Cheers. -- AlexTW05:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Concerning the release of the classic era seasons on Blu-ray, what images should we use in the infobox in the season articles? The current images as shown at Doctor Who (season 12) and Doctor Who (season 19) are the covers to the disc-box within the collection-box itself, with the "Doctor Who: The Collection - Season X" text, which has the same image as the plain image for the collection-box. However, if we compare these to the booklets included for Season 12, Season 18 and Season 19, we see that the booklets are more detailed, and provide a different colour scheme for each season article's base colours (per MOS:TV#Formatting, colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons.); the concern for this arises from Season 18's newest cover, which is very similar to Season 12 and 19. If we get a release for every season of the classic era, then we're going to end up with a lot of articles using the same blue/purple scheme. -- AlexTW07:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
