Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 8

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 6 July 2006 and 5 August 2006.

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


Archive
Archives


List of Doctor Who serials tabulation

I've made a proposal to turn List of Doctor Who serials into a table. Would appreciate comments on a proposal of the layout at Talk:List of Doctor Who serials. Morwen - Talk 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

New Series Adventures

Given the creation of The Clockwise Man, and the fact that the numbering system of the new books are consecutive from the Ninth and Tenth Doctor onwards, and the number of books that are already out, is it time to finally consider merging the Ninth Doctor Adventures and Tenth Doctor Adventures into a New Series Adventures article (I've seen that being used more and more on OG). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd not be in any rush to do this, although wouldn't oppose it. It will be interesting to see what happens when the BBC start releasing past doctor adventures again (which they have said they will, it's just a question of when) - especially if they continue to release Nine/Rose under the same brand. Morwen - Talk 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The BBC certainly won't be doing any Past Doctor Adventures any time soon — they no longer have a book division, following BBC Books' recent sale to Random House. T'will be interesting to see how this eventually affects the Who novels. Angmering 22:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with a merger as there is no conceptual difference between the books, they are one series. Tim! 08:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I suggested such a merger some time back. I definitely support it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just one more thing to decide: New Series Adventures or Doctor Who New Series Adventures or New Series Adventures (Doctor Who) or variations thereof? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that "New Series Adventures" sounds a bit too generic, and the article should probably have "Doctor Who" in its title, but I don't have a preference between "Doctor Who New Series Adventures" and "New Series Adventures (Doctor Who)". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You could always go with "New Doctor Adventures". (It's descriptive at least!) --71.139.18.66 09:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I definitely proposed a merger before (see discussion at Talk:Ninth Doctor Adventures#Merge with Tenth Doctor Adventures) and still feel the same way. "Doctor Who New Series Books" or "Doctor Who New Series Adventures" both seem fine to me; I'm not bothered really. As for the PDAs, they've passed on, they are no more, they have ceased to be. Bondegezou 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of me feels that there should be a page per Doctor, but merging the pages seems sensible as long as there is a break in the article between Doctors. --Jamdav86 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus on this. Would someone like to be bold and enact the merger? I've never done a merger before, so I'm not certain precisely how to do it! Bondegezou 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a shot at it. First thing to do is to merge the two page histories. Things may look weird for the next half hour or so, but please don't touch the articles until I give the all-clear. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it's done. Now the infoboxes and redirects need fixing. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes are fixed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Great work, khaosworks! Bondegezou 14:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There are still scattered redirects that need fixing, but I'll leave it for others to start on those. Gonna sleep. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The redirects are finished, and I've moved the novels themselves from Category:Ninth Doctor Adventures and Category:Tenth Doctor Adventures to the new Category:New Series Adventures, as well as the existing Category:Ninth Doctor novels and Category:Tenth Doctor novels. I suppose we can wait 72 hours and speedy delete the defunct categories then. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Random Doctor Who / Harry Potter query

Not knowing anything about Harry Potter, I was just struck by the thought — do Harry Melling and Alfred Enoch appear together on-screen in any of the films at all? Be a nice little coincidence for Who fans if they did! Angmering 10:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope: no shared scenes so far, and I don't think their characters are ever in the same place in the books (so far) either, so they probably won't share screen time in the remaining films. The two may not have met during filming, but they've probably both been at premieres or the like, so a photo of the two together might exist... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jake Simmonds

Own article or no? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a minor characters list article it could be merged into? —Whouk (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - he's as major as Harriet Jones, arguably as much as Adam Mitchell, and almost certainly more so than Chang Lee, all of whom have articles. Before Doomsday however, I'd have said no way. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely keep.. There are more than enough Buffyverse and Charmedverse articles to set a precedent for characters who have appeared in multiple episodes. You could create a "Preachers (Doctor Who)" or a "Pete's World" article too, but it would make him uncategorizable... and would be his article with other characters info tacked on, with links to Cybus and alternate Pete and Jackie. Keep as is. Zythe 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll resist the temptation to suggest that Chang Lee be redirected to the TV movie... —Whouk (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dalek Language

Anything worth salvaging from this? Tim! 19:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dalek is too big already, I would suggest not merging stuff into there. On the other hand, the whole contents of the article appears to come from a single obscure book from 1964, making for a bit of a weak article. There has to be more material on the Dalek language available than this. I recall off the top of my head that there have been references that give the Dalek name for the Doctor (two different ones, IIRC) and some mention of Dalek poetry, those should be mentioned. Bryan 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
If that's all there is, the article isn't worth keeping. As a list coming from one Dalek annual, it certainly isn't. The question is whether the glossary is notable, considering it's never been used anywhere else. Remove the list of words and everything else is already under the Culture heading in Dalek. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, are we sure this isn't a copyvio? 82.35.13.34 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
A verbatim transcription of the glossary certainly is one. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've redirected it to Dalek. See Talk:Dalek language. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Related Changes"

Could somebody make one of these for Doctor Who? Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:MiraLuka/Charmed_recent_changes or direct me to one that already exist? It would be really helpful for... everyone, really. Zythe 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is a single page with all Doctor Who related articles linked on one page, it would be easy. If there isn't one, you can use (for example):

Books, who has more?

I see List of Star Trek novels makes the bold and uncited claim that it "holds the record for the most novels based upon a single fictional universe". I had thought "we" did, and that this was something mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records, but can't find any evidence for this... Does anyone know? Tim! 20:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Trek probably does have more original novels than Who does. They've been cranked out pretty steadily since a good while before the Virgin New Adventures started. If you take the novelisations into account, it's a much closer race, but for original output, I think Trek will win. Either way, that claim really needs a citation. Doug A Scott (4 8 15 16 23 42) 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall that Doctor Who got into the Guinness Book of World Records (in 2000 or -something) for being the Biggest Book Series Centred Around One Character or something to the like..
Though, there's only a few Trek novelisations.. Mostly I'm thinking of the ones written by James Blish, but I know about the others. They're in my aging book collection. DrWho42 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the record is the largest book series based around a single fictional character [1]. Bondegezou 15:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've put a {{fact}} tag on the claim in List of Star Trek novels — I reckon they can fight it out there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who New Series 3 (second nomination)

Up for AFD again. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags up for deletion

Thought you guys might be interested in weighing in on this debate-- someone is requesting the removal of spoiler tags. -plange 01:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Novellas subcategory

This is more a notification than a query, since I don't think this'll be controversial: since we now have pages for The Cabinet of Light and I am a Dalek I reckon we can put them both in Category:Doctor Who novellas, and put that under Category:Doctor Who books. Just a heads-up, in case anybody thinks it's a bad idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. If you haven't done so already, you should make sure the Doctor Who novellas category itself is also listed under Category:Novellas too. 23skidoo 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Done, and thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there are some difficult issues about how you define a novella. Are you going to list the many Target novelisations that are of novella length? Are you going to exclude the Telos "novellas" that actually get longer than the usual meaning? I'm not certain of the best way forward. Bondegezou 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked up some numbers... the term novella roughly covers works of between 20-40,000 words. 7,500-20,000 words would be a novelette to some people. The New Adventures, Missing Adventures, Eighth Doctor Adventures and Past Doctor Adventures tended to be around 80-90,000 words long, clearly in novel territory. The Telos Doctor Who novellas are mostly of an expected length, but David J. Howe said on Jade Pagoda that the longest was Fallen Gods at about 50,000 words, but it would be odd to list that as a Doctor Who novel and the rest all as Doctor Who novellas. The Dalek Factor was 39,000. Peculiar Lives, one of the longer Time Hunter books, was 43,000. The new series adventures seem to be around 50,000. I am a Dalek is shorter than the Telos novellas, something like 20,000, at the bottom end of the novella range, but I don't think we want a Doctor Who novelette category! Some of the Target novelisations are of novella length, so should they be listed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bondegezou (talk • contribs) 12:55, July 25, 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that most Target novelizations merit their own pages, really, so it's only a concern for the Missing Episodes books (The Nightmare Fair, et al.) and the companions novels (Harry Sullivan's War and Turlough and the Earthlink Dilemma — by the way, should they have pages?). I feel like the novel/novella distinction is partly a marketing one: the Telos books were marketed as novellas, under a BBC license for Doctor Who novellas, so they go in Category:Doctor Who novellas, while the NAs, MAs, EDAs, etc. were marketed as novels and so are categorized under Category:Seventh Doctor novels or whatever. My instinct is that regardless of their length, it's OK for The Nightmare Fair and its brethren to be under Category:Sixth Doctor novels, but I don't feel strongly about it — if they're called novels on their back covers it might help determine how they were marketed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Poo

Does this really merit a page? Should we merge it with Doctor Who spoofs or let it... sit? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's as worthwhile as the other entries in Category:Viz characters. Tim! 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it, though? I think most of the others at least made multiple appearances in the magazine. Doctor Poo was a one-page strip that's had a subsequent half-life as a Flash animation. I don't really feel strongly about it either way, but since it's got the project notice on it I figured we should discuss... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going with Tim on this one.. Anyways, it seems pretty well-made considering for something being what it is. Mmmm, if we simply merge however, it seems that the Doctor Who spoofs page seems to be crowding up quite a bit. DrWho42 05:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New user template by Doctor

I have created a new user template that should replace the other 10 that are currently available. Please see {{User:UBX/Doctor Who Doctor}} to see the work. This is in an effort to reduce the amount of user templates in hopes of keeping the user template deletionists from having too many complaints about the amount of them. I will be putting the 10 individual templates up for deletion, but that master template will do the same as the 10 did. Please allow this to happen.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who wishes to vote in support or in opposition to the deletion request, the discussion is being held here. 23skidoo 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
May I replace the user template on the main project with this one? It is now even easier to use. - LA @ 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Good idea: save server space. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it still costs money. --Thelb4 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So, can I replace the one currently on the project page, or should I wait for more to decide whether the one I created will be the project's recognized user template? - LA @ 10:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for officially recognizing the template. Thank you. - LA @ 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that the users currently using the individual Doctor userboxes would mind being moved over to the consolidated one?. - LA @ 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on moving people with the individual templates over to the master template? - LA @ 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, I added the Cushing Doctor to the master template... :) - LA @ 05:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

DVD covers

Should more be done to include them? I think they are a vital part of an encyclopedia. Currently the only image is Image:Doctor Who DVD spines.jpg. Maybe we should include thumbnails on Doctor Who DVD releases? --Thelb4 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But would that be Region 2, 1 or 4 covers? Or can we afford to put them all on? -And so forth.--NP Chilla 13:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
In addition, there are probably fair use considerations involved in putting too many images on one page. It might be safer to include an image of the DVD cover on each serial's page (although NP Chilla's point about which one to use is a good one). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe since Doctor Who is made in a Region 2 area, then we should start with those. If we can find out whether we'd be allowed to use other versions, we should. --Thelb4 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the fair use policy is that it's OK to put a cover image up as long as the article contains critical commentary about the subject. What I'm not sure about is whether "the subject" in this case is the serial/episode, or the DVD proper, and whether our articles have sufficient critical commentary on either to qualify. (It's hard to walk the line between providing enough critical commentary to justify the fair use requirement and at the same time avoid original research — what we should probably do is work to include some account of public and fan response to each serial, as The Television Companion does, but without copying directly from that work.)
Khaosworks is a lawyer and judge, although U.S. copyright law isn't his bailiwick — can you help us out on this, Terence? Would we be within our rights to include an image of the R2 DVD covers on each serial page? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from WP1.0

Thanks for the articles you listed here. I added these to the Dr Who table but never got back to you. Sorry about that, we're grateful for your help, Walkerma 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

we should compile a menu for all things doctor who becuase i'm lost (not being here in a few months) also could we have a diagram showing how poerfull a certain darlex . becuase at the mo the black darlexs and the gold are as powerful as each other (they are not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madcowpoo (talk • contribs)

Is this what you had in mind? It's at the bottom of the most important Doctor Who pages, and nearly all the others can be accessed from one of the lists included there.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about the relative power of the Daleks — the Dalek hierarchy has been portrayed different ways in Doctor Who's long history, and it's all addressed in Dalek variants. We can't really come up with One Official Dalek Hierarchy here, because it would be original research. Or are you talking about firepower? That's never really been addressed in the programme, so again we're limited by the no original research policy. Also, when you say the black and gold Daleks are as powerful as each other, what article are you referring to? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

what meant is like in our world most powerful thing is the queen and the lest power full is the citercans. but in darlexs the most powerfull is the emporer and the least is the bronze ones

--Madcow 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon? Citercans? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
"Citizens". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for the translation. I think that the role of the Dalek Emperor is clear from his title, and the rest of the matter is adequately explained at Dalek variants. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate universe or alternative universe

Since it appears we have a difference of opinion here, let's try and trash it out. The SF Citations for OED site lists both versions, and lists both US and UK uses for both of them, so the idea that one is "American" or one is "UK" does not fly.

There are also cites for alternate future, alternative future, etc., but I think it's clear from this that either use is acceptable. For the sake of anchors in articles, sidestepping the issue as Tim! (talk · contribs) has done by making it (parallel) is probably a decent compromise. But in the same spirit of consistency, we should also try to figure out which one we should use, or whether it simply should be left alone rather than changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The four scripts of the 2006 cybermen episodes generally use parallel, so it should either be parallel universe or parallel earth in relation to those and those characters. Alternate/alternative future is a more awkward one. Tim! 12:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
In the context of Pete's World, I have absolutely no problem with this classification, as long as the anchors are preserved. My main concern is that the reason given for the edit warring over alternative/alternate is a dubious one given the etymological history. I raise this because of how we want to use it in future articles involving alternate/alternative universes. My view is that either use is acceptable and should not be changed. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See Alternate history (fiction).
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
But getting back to the original question, "alternate" means "different", whereas "alternative" gives more of a feeling of "a different choice". If you catch my drift. --NP Chilla 13:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but we're not dealing with an adjective ("alternate"/"alternative") but a noun phrase, "alternate universe", so the analysis must go to the entire phrase itself, not focusing on whether "alternate" or "alternative" is more correct. The fact remains that both terms have been and are used in both American and UK contexts. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I did a search here for Alternate universe which redirects to the Multiverse (science) article. In that article's Fictional multiverses section there was a link to the article Parallel universe. There was also a link to Alternate history (fiction). Alternative universe redirects to Parallel universe. So, use Parallel universe instead. - LA @ 18:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Have you come to a decision yet on this, khaosworks? - LA @ 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, my view is that either is acceptable, although my personal preference is for "alternate universe". Right now as far as Pete's World is concerned there's no real problem as such because of Tim's compromise wording for parallel universe, but I was more concerned about any future uses outside of the Pete's World context. I was waiting for more comments. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Companion appearances

An anonymous editor recently added a list of audio, novel, comic and short story appearances to Melanie Bush, and Tim and I tweaked and polished it so it's closer in format to the lists of appearances on each Doctor's page. Do we want to add a list of appearances like this to each companion's page, and if so, is this a good format to follow? (I figure it's best to get a consensus on the format before we add the list to dozens of pages, so nobody's energy is wasted in clean-up.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a nice format, and I think such a section on each companion page would add value.—Litefoot 06:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cushing Doctor

Rhindle The Red recently moved Cushing Doctor to Dr. Who (AARU films), but didn't fix the redirects. If we like this name, I'll fix the redirects, but I don't want to bother if the project would rather it stay at Cushing Doctor. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, Cushing Doctor goes with Shalka Doctor. On the other hand, "Dr. Who" is technically more correct, since we're basing "Cushing Doctor" on fan usage (which, sadly, is not really possible to cite). I'd say weak support for the move, although I don't really like the "AARU films" suffix, but it'll do unless someone can come up with something else (just "(film)" doesn't quite work unless we add a bit about the Japanese "Dr. Who". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need an article on this Doctor separate from articles on the two films in the first place? Phil Sandifer 05:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So which film article should it go in and why? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we have a general article on the two films? Phil Sandifer 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we should have an article Doctor (other) or Other Doctors. Then we can put this and all other Doctors outside of the main storyline, those with uncertain or no canonicity, in it. - LA @ 06:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, but I'm not crazy about the name, in part because it invites confusion with Other (Doctor Who) and in part because the title doesn't make it clear that it's related to Doctor Who as opposed to, say, alternative medicine. Perhaps something like Non-television Doctors of Doctor Who? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
(I just realized that that doesn't allow for the "Curse of Fatal Death" Doctors, who were made for TV and aired on the BBC but not canonical. Hmm.) —06:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Each film has its own article, so no, we don't have a general article for both. As for the Other Doctors idea, I don't like it for the reason that (a) there aren't that many and (b) it sounds like cruftbait. There's way too many lists already. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a list, it would be an article about non-canonical (sp) Doctors. Each Doctor would get a whole section. Something similar was done with the Stargate project. There was a merger of like characters on the same article, this would be the same thing, merging all unofficial Doctors into one article. The name of the character is The Doctor, so that is why I suggested the names for the articles above, but I am sure that someone can come up with something better. How about Other portrayals of The Doctor? - LA @ 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What is AARU? It's not even mentioned in the articles. It's also a lousy name. Tim! 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it is the name, or the abbreviation, of the production company that produced the two films in which Cushing appeared as The Doctor. - LA @ 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Another thought crossed my mind...was Cushing supposed to be the First Doctor or the Second Doctor? I was thinking about the article being titled First Doctor (alternate) or Second Doctor (alternate) whichever the case may be. - LA @ 03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The first film was made before Hartnell left the role, so there wasn't even a concept of First or Second Doctor. Peter Cushing was playing a character based on the role Hartnell had played in those two Dalek television serials; however, the filmmakers chose to make "Dr. Who"'s origins more Earthbound and less mysterious than those of the television character. At the time, the result was mainly a difference in tone, but eventually the television programme explicitly contradicted the origin given in the films, with the introduction of the Time Lords in "The War Games". First Doctor (alternate), to my eyes, suggests a character more closely allied to the television series as it later developed, with multiple Doctors. At the time "Dr. Who and the Daleks" was made, recasting the character was probably considered no different than recasting the role of Bernard Quatermass for the film version of The Quatermass Xperiment; it's only the later developments of the television series that make it more complicated.
Besides which, the two movies are clearly remakes of existing Hartnell serials. If Cushing's Doctor can be considered anything, it's as simply an alternate portrayal of Hartnell's character. Just as Sherlock Holmes and Bertie Wooster are recast and reconceived, their adventures retold again and again, as needs suggest.--71.139.18.66 09:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So do we leave the article at Dr. Who (AARU films) or not? Another alternative might be Dr. Who (Dalek films)... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Shall I go ahead and move it to Dr. Who (Dalek films)? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Tim's done it, and taken care of the redirects. Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed at Articles for deletion

The aforementioned article has been nominated for deletion. Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoniverse

I feel maybe Template:Doctorwhocharacter should be moved to Template:Whoniversecharacter to better include characters from Torchwood and those like Captain Jack who appear in both. There would only need to be a minor edit in the form of changing the line

Doctor Who character

to

Doctor Who / Torchwood character

Obviously the Torchwood characters category would only include Jack at this point. Then new categories Category:Whoniverse and Category:Whoniverse characters would be needed, with Category:Doctor Who characters and Category:Torchwood characters being subcategories.

This is the solution people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffyverse found to encorporate characters from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (TV series) together better.

Maybe create an article on Whoniverse too, or any other favoured term, much like the article on Buffyverse. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do NOT call it Whoniverse unless someone can point me in the direction of that being the official name for the setting of Doctor Who. Doctor Who setting and Category:Doctor Who setting are much much better. Doctor Who is too classy to follow the example set by adolescent Buffy fans. Category:Doctor Who setting characters would cover the characters from Doctor Who and Torchwood. (I wish that the 10th Doctor would cross the pond quickly. I really really need to see them. I hate that I can't read half the articles because they all contain a massive amount of spoilers.)
The discussion from which this springs is Wikipedia:Locations in fiction, fictional locations, and settings.
If this doesn't make sense, I am a bit tired. - LA @ 08:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I only suggested it because it seemed like it was the official or at least fan endorsed name. ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Whoniverse" is used by a fair number of fans, but it's by no means official or universally endorsed. I suppose "Doctor Who setting" is OK, though I'm not convinced that "setting" covers as much territory as "fictional universe" — for example, I think that characters fit more naturally in "universe of Doctor Who" than in "setting of Doctor Who". I think "setting" is more about the time and place in which a narrative occurs, and "universe" encompasses the totality of the narrative's context, including the rules under which it operates.
I'm not sure how to apply that thought to the categorization issue that Zythe raises, though. Perhaps Category:Characters of the ''Doctor Who'' universe? For right now it's only an issue for Jack Harkness, so I think we can wait a bit and see if a more universal (!) term develops. (By the way, I don't share Lady A.'s disdain of Buffy fans or the term "Buffyverse", which I think has even been used in academic writing on the subject of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. I think that it's better to follow the terminology used by those who love a subject than to impose an arbitrary standard — "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", and all that.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
With more recent announcements, seems the Whoniverse is expanding at an alarming rate. Anyway, don't forget about K-9 and Company. You simply mustn't! --71.139.18.66 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gallifrey audios: Pandora

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

I've been updating various pages with the latest from the Gallifrey audio series from Big Finish. But I must confess that I've gotten thoroughly confused as to what exactly Pandora was. Was she the spirit of the executed first Lady President of Gallifrey, living on malevolently in the Matrix, or was she a gestalt of all the negative emotions of the Matrix? I'm sure that at some point in the series she was referred to as being from the future, as well as the past — was that just a reference, before she escaped in Romana I's body, to her eventual return to power, or was she already some sort of paradox? I'm confused, and want to make sure that my confusion isn't reflected on affected pages such as Romana, Irving Braxiatel, Matrix (Doctor Who) and Gallifrey. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

AIUI, she's the spirit of the executed first Lady President of Gallifrey, though she is bound for a time in a partition of the matrix which contains the Time Lords' avarice. You could also be thinking of the Garvond, a gestalt of all the evil in the Matrix featured in the NA The Dimension Riders, or of the Dark Matrix in the BBC book Matrix. Percy Snoodle 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks — I think that's right, and accounts for some of my confusion. I'll check the relevant articles to make sure we're describing her as "an ancient Gallifreyan evil" instead of "a Gallifreyan evil from the future", which I think we were calling her for a while. (I may have been responsible for that myself, actually — if so, mea culpa.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Having digested everything up to Mindbomb, I think I've figured it out: Pandora is from the past, but since the Matrix contains all the knowledge of the Time Lords, and is able to extrapolate and predict the future, the entity within the Matrix has past, present and future aspects. Brax managed to trap the past and present aspects within himself (or Darkel, as it turns out), but the future aspect lingered on and manifested itself as Romana I. In Mindbomb, Brax describes Pandora without the Matrix as instinct, pure evil, the dark side of the Matrix, i.e. being formerly part of the Matrix, and having fed on the ambition, dark thoughts, etc. of the Matrix all these eons, that's all that's left (that's where the gestalt entity aspects come from).
In any case, the aspects in Darkel have been consumed along with her; the future aspect was destroyed along with the Matrix; and the last sliver of Pandora — which Brax used to hold the bulk of Pandora in Darkel in check — is stuck in Brax, as confirmed by Ronan in The Crystal of Cantus (well, according to the Irving Braxiatel article anyway, I haven't listened to any of the Benny audios myself). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Kudos, Terence — that's an impressive bit of summarizing, making a rather complicated character comprehensible. I think all the references are accurate now. (Should we consider a Pandora (Doctor Who) article, or is it adequately covered at Gallifrey#Gallifrey audio series?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's some weak justification for a Pandora (Doctor Who) article, considering her literary predecessor Pengalia as well as the mention of Pandorastrumnelliahanfloriana in Tragedy Day, plus the possible repercussions for Brax in the Benny audios. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll let you take the lead on that, then; if I have time to do anything constructive (beyond the usual vandal whack-a-mole) my next project will be to expand the appearance lists for companions, per #Companion appearances above. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ten Doctors collage

Hey, folks. Image:10dr19.jpg was recently tagged with {{no source}} and {{no rationale}}. Since the uploader (Aquanostra9 (talk · contribs) hasn't been around lately, I've been trying to provide what's necessary for the image. I think I've taken care of the rationale (although I confess that I'm still fairly uncertain about the intricacies of fair use), but I'd like some help on the sources. Are these images all publicity photos, or are some of them from screenshots? (I was thinking the Peter Davison one might be.) Is any member of the Project au fait with the precise requirements for image sourcing here? Do we have to find the copyright date for each image, and the circumstances of its release, or is it OK just to say "promotional images released between 1963 and 2005"? (I'm also asking here, but I thought I'd mention it here as well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of them are from publicity photos. I know my original collage was. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I've taken care of what the fair use policy requires — while I was at it, I wrote explicit fair use rationales for all the images used in Doctor Who and put tags in the article itself, as recommended here. We should all probably make an effort to ensure that all the images used in project pages are appropriately tagged, since Wikipedia as a whole is becoming more strict about such things, and current policy says copyrighted images without fair use rationales can be deleted quickly: within 48 hours for newly uploaded images, and within 7 days of notification of original uploader for images uploaded before 13 July 2006. Although we've probably got some images whose fair use rationale is weak, I think that if we work together we can ensure that we keep most of our pretty pictures. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You should time-stamp episodes with original airdates or something

Hi Im not a member of this project, but Ive been poking round some of your articles and have found them to be fascinating and generally very well written. One thing that I noticed though is that you cite the names of episodes/serials frequently when discussing continuity, which is great but I imagine that it would be much more informative if you also mentioned the original airdates of those stories (or if thats not possible time-stamped them somehow). Apologies if this issue has been debated and resolved in the past. Hueysheridan 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Huey. That's something we haven't been very consistent about; we do sometimes write the year of broadcast when mentioning a serial or episode — e.g. "The Deadly Assassin (1976) — but I don't think we've established a project-wide standard on it. I think it's a good idea to at least mention the year of broadcast, to provide context for readers who aren't up on every nook and cranny of Doctor Who. I don't think we need to state the full broadcast date — that's mentioned at each serial's page — but a year is useful. (Huey, did you have something more complex in mind when you say "time-stamp", or just an inline mention of the year?) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree this would be a useful addition. Litefoot 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What I had in mind was some more info about when the stories were filmed/first broadcast to, as you say, provide more context. I guess if the episode pages themselves give airdates then a year would be sufficient. Anyway thanks for the quick reply! Hueysheridan 11:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Investigates

Ladies and gentlemen: Sarah Jane Investigates.

Would it be premature to put it in Template:Doctor-who? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's a bit premature for the whole article. I'd have hung fire on it until we had a bit more confirmation. Angmering 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough — I suppose I was just excited. We'll see what develops over the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably too early for the template (K9 adventures isn't added yet), but otherwise good ;-) Tim! 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who Reference Guide

More AfD fodder? Comments, please. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a bit. It probably fails under WP:NN and WP:WEB. Maybe WP:VANITY. --Thelb4 11:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Now up for deletion. --Thelb4 10:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)