Talk:Doctor Who

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

	Doctor Who is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 1, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject British TV shows This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. WikiProject Doctor Who      (Rated FA-Class Top-importance) Doctor Who Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject BBC      (Rated FA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) High This article has been rated as high-importance within the BBC WikiProject. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks you can do: Merge: Suggested merge of Criticism of the BBC into BBC controversies (Discuss) Cleanup: Newsnight, BBC Prime, BBC Two Northern Ireland Expand: All 10 start-class BBC articles with Top importance - see here, BBC Lifestyle Stubs: Stub-Class BBC articles Update: BBC Portal NPOV: Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Other: Ensure all our articles have the talk page template added to their talk pages. Add free use images for biographical articles. Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes. Get our new task force on BBC Sitcoms going. Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC. WikiProject England      (Rated FA-Class) England Portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: "Doctor Who heals US networks", Variety, February 8, 2008. (details)

Archives
October 2001 – November 2004 December 2004 – July 2005 July 2005 – March 2006 February 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 - September 2007 October 2007 - December 2007

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Contents 1 Should this article be shortened? 2 Re:no additional sites added without discussion on the talk page 3 Captain Jack's Reprise / Sarah Janes return? 4 Viewership section 5 Centralized TV Episode Discussion 6 Infobox - drama? 7 Sarah Jane Hoax? 8 Spinoffs 9 Number of Episodes 10 Show sub-pages. 11 Original episode 12 Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series 13 New series 14 Strange change 15 Overall Story Titles for New Series Doctor Who Stories? 16 McCoy & McGann's official tenure time 17 The Ten Doctors 18 New article suggestion 19 Heppitattamutu 20 Flag in infobox 21 Source needed 22 The article is missing lots of material 23 Time for Featured Article Review? 24 Serials vs Episodes 25 Reverting Edit 26 Roy Spencer 27 Award Winning 28 Darbyshire composer 29 episode 4.12 of the latest season

[edit] Should this article be shortened?

It's getting a bit long. Perhaps some sections should be turned into independant articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.226.83 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:no additional sites added without discussion on the talk page

In relation to the hidden text additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted we have actually lost a number of sites since the great purge attempt last June [1] .They may well have been removed for a good reason but there doesn't seem to be any discussion on the talk pages to remove them and apparently if I try to re-insert them they might be reverted on the basis of additional sites added without discussion on the talk page will be reverted.

Just a point I thought should be brought up . Garda40 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what sites do you want to insert? --Brian Olsen (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Or reinsert? Klippa (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I inset www.drwhofigures.co.uk? Lumic (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (GMT)

That link would seem to fall foul of [2], Section 5, so my opinion is that it's an inappropriate link. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That's a store site. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As a French fan and french contributor (Gyld on the French Wikipedia), I suggest to add a french site about the show, Beans on Toast (h[ttp://www.doctor-who.fr/]). You can search, this site is cited in the website of David Tennant ([3]). I think that can show how Doctor Who is know in France, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.123.198 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Jack's Reprise / Sarah Janes return?

In the intro "John Barrowman will be filming for the show after Christmas 2007, reprising his role as Captain Jack Harkness". Can he possibly be reprising his role, given that he must have been playing it almost without a break since the beginning of 2005? Klippa (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• His involvement in series 4 has been confirmed in multiple media. 23skidoo (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think he's saying that the wrong word has been used. To be honest, I can't think of a better phrase to use myself. StuartDD _{contributions} 08:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Continuing"? Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sound's good. StuartDD _{contributions} 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was writing a bit obliquely. Sorry. Yes. I just meant that he's not really reprising the role if he's played it in 26 episodes of Torchwood and 8 episodes of Doctor Who in about 36 months. I should've made a suggestion myself, but, yes, 'continuing' resolves my concern. Klippa (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; I misunderstood your question. 23skidoo (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think "reprising" sounds better - but what is the purpose of all this "latest production info" stuff anyway? Isn't this paragraph just meant to say who is currently in the TARDIS - in which case it would be better to just dump everything after "Catherine Tate is due to reprise her role of Donna Noble in the new series"? We certainly haven't kept, for example, a note that Liz Sladen was a guest star in S2 episode School reunion, as she's apparently going to be for one episode of S4. 81.109.71.38 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the paragraph has maybe got too long, especially now that someone's just added that "Sarah in Series 4" bit. We could just go with mentioning Donna. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those who see this not as a reprise but a continuous role. Reprise generally suggests a role is resumed after a period of time, but Barrowman has played the role continuously since Torchwood's debut. The Sarah S4 thing is a hoax according to one editor; not sure how that might figure into the discussion. (Hope I will be forgiven for changing the heading - reprisal is like retaliation and it just seemed wrong!)Drmargi (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, yes i checked the source on Liz Sladen "confirmed" appearence in S4. Unfortuantly it was a clear hoax from an unoffical website. I checked the BBC's website and could not find any new source. So i assume its not comfirmed at all that Sarah Jane is returning to Doctor Who. TheProf07 (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by an interview in with Lis Sladen in SFX magazine. A very well respected sci-fi magazine, it's not a hoax. GracieLizzie (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This still reads as more speculative than confirmed. I read the piece cited, and it's a "coming up" piece on the new issue, focused on Sladen's own series, with only an indirect reference to a Doctor Who episode. Not exactly solid confirmation. Until the actual interview is published and a direct quote from Sladen can be cited, I don't think this belongs in the article. Drmargi (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes good sense, per WP:CRYSTAL. Why can't we wait for an official announcement anyway? WP is not a news service. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and suggested there be a discussion to consensus herein. Clearly there is some need for caution. Drmargi (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see what Sarah Jane actually said, but I don't think this is a hoax. StuartDD _{contributions} 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we can no longer fairly call it a hoax, which was reasonable at one time. But it still needs better confirmation than what is available thusfar. Drmargi (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see that interview in full. Maybe "Hoax" is a harsh word. However, its still very vague whats being said and it strikes me that her appearance will ultimatly just be a cameo. TheProf07 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In your defense, I think hoax was a reasonable conclusion at the time you drew it, and appropriately supported by the evidence provided. Now, we have the benefit of a second, albeit sketchy, source that demands a bit more guarded language. Drmargi (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was 'Hoax' that made me act defensively. Because SFX are well respected. --GracieLizzie (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viewership section

"The all-time highest chart placing for an episode of Doctor Who is fifth, for episode two of The Ark in Space in 1975." I would guess that's now out-of-date and Voyage of the Damned has beaten it. Is there confirmation anywhere though? Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think final figures are due in the next few days - modern audience data includes "timeshifted viewers" (i.e. those who record and watch later) and this takes some time to add to the figures. The "overnight results" don't factor this in and can confuse (although the shows that tend to lose viewer between the overnights & finals are things like news bulletins and the lottery results where very few people record to watch later). Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not in favor of separating the so-called "classic" series and the "revived" series (as far as I'm concerned they're one show with a 16-year hiatus between seasons), in this case I do think it's prudent to handle the ratings separately between the two eras. The way ratings are measured, and the way audiences viewed the show in 2007 is nothing like the way they viewed the show in 1975. 23skidoo (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox - drama?

In the infobox, for "format" it says Drama. Wouldn't Melodrama be more accurate? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever heard DW described as a melodrama. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it's not the most obvious description. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It was described as such by Philip Hinchcliffe on a DVD commentary - Talons of Weng Chiang I think, but I'll check that. The focus on actions and events at the expense of character development is a characteristic of melodrama though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great respec' to Mr Hinchliffe, but I doubt if one commentary on one episode doth a definition make. Besides, for such a long-lasting series, I'd argue that character development for the major characters is more slow-burning and somewhat limited in any case. After all, we get a good idea of each of the companions, say, from their first appearances, and their character development takes place across the series arcs against the background of the action. Meanwhile, signing your posts reduces annoying edit conflicts. Cheers --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops re signing, I seem to be having a bad day for it! Shall we agree to leaving off the "melodrama" discussion unless a good ref for it comes up? Otherwise it's the dreaded Original Research if we go by our own impressions. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Jane Hoax?

TheProf07 why do you think this is a hoax? it is an interview with Elisabeth Sladen herself in a respected Sci-Fi magazine. --GracieLizzie (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look over on the doctorwhoforum.com some posters in the set reports thread have posted pictures of liz filming for the doctor who finale. althought not from an official source it clearly shows this not to be a 'hoax' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.111.211 (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoax it may not be, but as yet, it lacks a reliable source. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinoffs

Should the spinoffs section on this page list spinoffs that never got off the drawing board? There seem to be quite a few things here that didn't get beyond concept art, or from the mind of RTD. Would these aborted spinoffs not be better on the dedicated DW Spinoffs page and only list the stuff on this one that actually made it to our screen, or is about to? Mmm commentaries (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User Ckatz( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ckatz ) repeatedly deleted a source reference link pertaining to the last paragraph of the spinoff section. This relates to the proposed Young Dr Who series. As users are encouraged to provide references to back up their contributions I do not understand this behaviour on behalf of Ckatz. The contributor has now been banned by Ckatz. I raise this matter in the hope that whomsoever runs this site can remedy the situation. I have restored the reference and await a decision by admin. If I'm not banned myself ofcourse. Hence a speedy response would be much appreciated. Siliconshrew (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But a source has to be reliable. The Daily Mirror is not regarded as a reliable source. Until this comes from the BBC or someone who has a reputation for checking its sources, this is rumour and cannot be in the article. Feel free to use it in a blog somewhere, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is even worse is a US website, www.youngdrwho.com, operating from Colorado, pretending to be a British newspaper whose web address, www.mirror.co.uk, operates from Birmingham. Anyone else putting this information back in does it at their own risk. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. I fail to see how you can call the Daily Mirror unreliable in this context. Its not a story about tap dancing hamsters. Its a straight story straight from the BBC offices front desk. Besides, I used to live in England and the Daily Mirror is far more reliable than Wikipedia. Banning doesn't scare me. If this is how you run the place then why would anyone be bothered by such a threat. The short link to the site is unimportant. We can use the Daily Mirror html if thats a big problem. Siliconshrew (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not. In that article, they refer to Russell Davies as "Queer as Polk producer" (sic); so it's clear they can't even be bothered to check their copy. That's why they are not regarded as reliable. Source it elsewhere, if you can. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had a more comprehensively detailed source I would have used it. As this is the only source I thought it would be even more important to include it. A short scene of Dr Who as a child on Gallifrey did appear in the last episodes of series 7 and that does suggest the idea was being kicked around at the BBC. I realise that isn't conclusive but there is no reason to doubt the veracity of this newspaper article. It is not a wild ghost story or ufo abduction tale. Its a simple entertainment piece. Siliconshrew (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the nature of the publication itself that makes it so questionable. Tabloids don't check sources well, as documented above, and are not above making things up. That you can't find another, reliable source, tends to give credence to the notion this link you're so determined to place in the article (one wonders why) is not reliable. And consequently, I've reverted you again. Why on earth would an url for Young Doctor Who display as The Mirror if this were legitimate? The Mirror story is phony, beginning to end, as is the website, which is what others have attempted to explain. Drmargi 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You might do well at this point to review the Three-Revert Rule. Drmargi 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Siliconshrew: As far as I can tell, you are referring to the user "Seekerbot". That user has been blocked (not "banned", which is quite different) because of a history of vandalism. A second administrator also added that the name is a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a couple of links to other Daily Mirror website pages which list the article as part of a "Russel T Davies" or "Dr Who" internal search. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tags/russell-t-davies/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/tags/dr-who/ The site is genuine. As I've attempted to explain. Siliconshrew (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The links don't validate the information, which still is considered to be from an unreliable source. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By whom? The elite here? Admins seem to have the final say on absolutely everything. Talk about caretakers on a power trip! I thought this was the encyclopedia that anyone could edit. I guess that's just hype. What it should read is "the encyclopedia that nobody can edit but admins". Admins being anybody who lurks around the place a few months (without anything better to do) correcting easy spelling mistakes and gleefully reporting newcomers for any one of ten thousand vague rule breaches. Coveting the day when they will have enough barnstars to lord it over the mere mortals tapping away. No wonder Wikipedia is now a staple source of mirth for stand up comedy acts. Perhaps if you didn't abuse everyone who walked through the door you wouldn't have so many people "vandalising" the place. So newspapers are unreliable and websites are all fake. Its a miracle anything ever gets approved here. Even if I had a letter from the BBC and scanned it you would just say its a fake. Siliconshrew (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No. No. No. Policy, experience and consensus decide what is a reliable source. I suggest you get used to that and stop whinging because you can't get your own way. Consensus is against you. End of argument. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While Siliconshrew's comments do reflect what I think is an increasing frustration with admins claiming dominion over edits without feeling the need to offer explanation - as if their word alone is golden - which is a frustration I can't help but share.... I have to say, about this particular issue - it's the Daily Effin' Mirror! Nobody on the planet thinks that's a reliable source. Get over it. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who aborted spin-offs are already documanted here and adding them elsewhere would be superfluous, and it would be more appropriate to link to that section if it's really needed at all. Re: The Young Doctor Who debate, are you effen kidding me? Siliconshrew, you surely are feckless. The Daily Mirror is not a reliable source, it is a tabloid. Moreover, if a source such as that--something that would be a rather large story--can only be found at one place, it's most likely to be rubbish. - \\Aeron\\talk 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Siliconshrew, administrators don't "have the final say on absolutely everything" - every editor does, through the consensus process. Admins are the ones who are then tasked with ensuring that the consensus is maintained. If the majority of editors here agreed that the Mirror was reliable enough to validate this story, admins (myself included) would be expected to deal with editors who try to remove the reference. That is not the case here, however, as consensus seems to be pretty heavily in opposition to including the Mirror text. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God! You use majority consensus to make important decisions! That's a recipe for disaster. Explains quite a lot actually. Think about it. Uninformed votes from ignorant people (which most of the public indeed are) can only lead to contradicting passages and fairness will go out the window. Look at the Israel page for example. Anything derogatory about the history of this new nation gets argued out by the jews patrolling the page. Truth means nothing. In fact the jews would appreciate the logic of my argument. Forty million germans can't be wrong, right? Majority decisions aren't decisions at all. It's like asking the passengers on the QE2 to take over the running of the ship. The ship would probably perish. Like asking the public to vote on a new tax. Ofcourse they'll vote against it even if the extra revenue is vital to the nation. Now I read here that a few self proclaimed leaders here don't like the Daily Mirror newspaper. They also claim the site is a fake. Where is the evidence? There is nothing to black these wild paranoid claims. I'm going to help out here and call a friend of mine at the BBC. She should be able to track down the truth. By the way, is it true that a bunch of admins here destroyed a page on Bindi Irwin because "she isn't famous". Ignorance is the only sin. Darthdracula (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful Darth. People mysteriously vanish around here for saying less than that. You haven't said anything new. Look around the place and you'll find tons of dead profiles with messages left behind cursing the admins and wikipedia in general for the exact reasons you've outlined. You might as well be talking to a brick wall. These people are hardcore fanatics who spend way too much time here. Nothing you say will make a dent in their psyche. Better to move on and forget about this failed experiment. Gremlinoid (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

SiliconShrew is a sockpuppet of the banned user Universe Daily. You can safely ignore him. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily for more info. MER-C 11:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Episodes

If you count the TVM as an episode. Which as it was only for TV, it is! You get 739 episodes (as of 25th December 2007) not 738! This needs to be fixed at once. I tried to put the correct information onto the article. But another editor removed it! TheProf | 2007 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is 738, honest! Check out List of Doctor Who serials. Are you including The Infinite Quest? Or Time Crash? None of those count. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, i'm not counting any Comic Releaf or Children in Need specials. Also, i'm not counting Shada. But i have a list right in front of me and with the TVM (TV Movie), its 739. I would post the list ive got, but i would need a whole page! Thanks TheProf | 2007 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think its 738 in the article because no one is counting the TVM! I suggest that we do count the TVM as Russell T Davies himself considers it 'canon'. Thanks TheProf | 2007 12:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So are "Time Crash" and "Pudsey Cutaway", doesn't mean they are included when counting the episodes. --GracieLizzie (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

GracieLizzie, that makes no sense! TVM, Time Crash and Pudsey Cutaway are canon but should'nt be counted!? Care to explain? TheProf | 2007 12:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added them up before, and got 738 including TVM as 1 episodes - which is why I put it back to 738. StuartDD _{contributions} 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well i added them up before and got 739 including the TVM. 738 without the TVM! The article List of Doctor Who serials agrees with me! In there it says 738 episodes and one TV movie. TheProf | 2007 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says 738 including one TV movie.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i rechecked my list (about 6 times!) and yes, as i thought, i had counted an episode twice! Making me one episode ahead of the wikipedia list. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. On another note; GracieLizzie pointed out earlier that Pudsey Cutaway and Time Crash are not counted on the list. Are they really considered 'canon'? If so, should they be placed on the list? Again sorry and thanks TheProf | 2007 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They are considered canon but they are miniepisodes. I don't think they are generally considered long enough to be episodes. At least, that was the impression I got. --GracieLizzie (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Show sub-pages.

I'm sure this has been discussed over and over, but I think there needs to be an "original series" page and a "new series" page. Leave this one as the "franchise" page, but have two subpages for the seperate shows.

Yes, one is a continuation of the other, but there are enough differences to at least have a place to link to when discussing specifics.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original episode

I was wondering if anyone else could confirm something I heard many years ago while living in England. It was rumoured that the first episode of Dr Who had a tragically low number of viewers due to the assassination of JFK the day before in Texas. This resulted in the episode being redone the following week. This also caused a few concerns due to the fact that the episode was done live and had to be recreated as best as possible the following saturday. Can anyone confirm this as I have been unable to track down this in any other forum.

Britlost (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Britlost

It wasn't done live. However, there's a bit of truth to the JFK assassination story. See An Unearthly Child, particularly the section on Broadcast and Release. DonQuixote (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The episode was repeated the following week - though I've read somewhere that this was due to a power failure and not due to the JFK assassination. It was not done live (that's one of the myths given on the BBC page) and according to tardis wiki the first episode was watched by over 4 million. StuartDD _{contributions} 11:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New series

The article says the next series starts on 5 April, and then cites a reference which states 31 March. Can somebody who knows the correct date amend this, to either change the date or the reference? Richard75 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange change

FYI, I reverted this edit by DW Celt from earlier tonight. Not sure what it was about - no edit summary or discussion that I could see, and it seemed to be a major revert/re-edit. If there was a discussion somewhere, apologies, but otherwise... Anyone else know what this was about? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I read some of it which appeared to be pure hoax. WP:EUI perhaps? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 06:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like testing and just sort of odd. DarkestMoonlight (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Story Titles for New Series Doctor Who Stories?

I note that, whenever a new series 2- or 3-parter is referred to in text, it is always "Aliens of London/World War Three" or "Human Nature/The Family of Blood". I also note that we do not refer to William Hartnell stories not titled on screen as "The Edge of Destruction/The Brink of Disaster" or "The Powerful Enemy/Desperate Measures". From this, I conclude that there should be agreed titles for all New Series Doctor Who stories. My suggestions are as follows:

"Aliens of London/World War Three" - Aliens of London

"The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances" - The Empty Child (that's hardly contested)

"Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways" - The Parting of the Ways

"Rise of the Cybermen/THe Age of Steel" - Rise of the Cybermen

"The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit" - The Satan Pit

"Army of Ghosts/Doomsday" - Doomsday

"Daleks in Manhattan/Evolution of the Daleks" - Evolution of the Daleks

"Human Nature/The Family of Blood" - Human Nature (although, if we wanted to distinguish from the novel, then "The Family of Blood")

"Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords" - Last of the Time Lords.

Please post your suggestions. 210.4.230.240 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)youdidntreadthis

The trouble is they are just that - suggestions. The two part stories are not referred to by one singular episode title - its always the two put together. Even your suggestions are inconsistent, in some cases you choose the first ep for its overall title, in some cases you choose the last. We just have to accept that the new series has individual episode titles for multi-parters and are referred to by their dual titles, whereas the original series stories have overall titles. Mmm commentaries (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would cause more disruption than anything; attractive, in a sense, though the proposal is, its only merit would seem to be brevity. Wikipedia is not paper, so there is little overhead to be saved by conflating titles; also, there are several places in related articles where a single episode, rather than a story sub-arc, is referred to, e.g. "in (episode) Martha is shown to be ...". Conflation would diffuse this information and we would risk confusing our readers. My preference would be to leave things as they are. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Although there is a precedent (the Hartnell episodes and Noel Clarke only knowing Aliens of London/World War Three by one title in an interview), presently there isn't enough externally-documented information (such as DWM) to avoid original research. DonQuixote (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between the new series two/three parters and the old series serials, is that even the BBC now recognise the old serials as one title. I.e; The first seven part Dalek serial is now simply known as 'The Daleks' as oppose to The Dead Planet/The Survivors/The Escape/The Ambush/The Expedition/The Ordeal/The Rescue. Whereas the new series two/three parters are still recognised by the BBC as Aliens of London/World War Three ect... Well thats my point of view anyway! :-) TheProf - T / C 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Aliens of World War Three, The Empty Doctor Dances with a Child, Parting Ways with the Bad Wolf, Rise of the Age of Steel, The Satan Pit on the Impossible Planet, Army of Doomsday Ghosts, The Daleks Evolve, In Manhattan!, The Human Nature of Blood and The Last of the Time Lords Utopian Sound of Drums. Seriously, though? It just isn't feasible. Any naming system would be inconsistent and confusing to anyone not part of this conversation. Part One/Part Two works fine, and doesn't cause confusion between the individual episodes and the entirety of the two parters. \\Aeron\\talk 03:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention under the naming system when we say "X first appeared in Doomsday" do we mean "X first appeared Army of Ghosts/Doomsday" or "X first appeared in the episode Doomsday"

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCoy & McGann's official tenure time

We've had a bit of an edit war on this. The BBC's official site lists McCoy's tenure as "1987-1996", while McGann is listed as "1996". It seems to me that this is inconsistent, and that for accuracy, we should be consistent here, and either list them as the actual time of their appearance ––in which case McCoy should be listed (as he was before) as "1987-1989 & 1996", or list them with a timeline in which they were considered the "official" Doctor, in which case, McGann would be "1996-2004". --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is first and last appearence (excluding multiple doctor returns).

That would put McCoy as 1987 - 1996 and McGann as 1996.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but if we took that "first and last appearance" rule and applied it consistently, you'd have lots of overlap, because that would have to include the appearances in crossover episodes, such as The Five Doctors, The Two Doctors, etc. Patrick Troughton, for example, would be listed as "1966-1985". I think the best course here is to keep it as it was and list McCoy's 1996 appearance as a separate "& 1996" if at all. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hense the words "excluding multiple doctor returns"

Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence the words "applied it consistently"--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Duggy here. Firstly we are listing the dates that the actor appeared as the Doctor in the officially canon TV series (not including guest appearances as the Doctor in a multi-doc adventure.). Secondly we have to take the dating as given by the official BBC source as it stands. If the BBC state on the Doctor Who web pages that McCoy or McGann was the Doctor during those dates then surely that is as official as can be and not open to interpretation? Deckchair (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that matter it depends. If you're saying "Official" and citing the BBC, then sure. Otherwise as long as it isn't original research and is citable, other methods can be used...

Duggy 1138 (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think it's misleading to say that McCoy was the Doctor continuously for 9 years, when in fact it was only 2 years, followed by a 7 year gap and a small appearance in the TV movie. To someone not familiar with the program, this tells a very different story, and the McCoy gap is unique among the history of the series. Regardless of how the BBC lists it on their site, it's clear from nearly infinite sources that he did not appear continuously during this time, and it should be the goal of this article to be as accurate as possible - not to mimic what the BBC tells us is the "official timeline". --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, according the the BBC, Doctor Who wasn't cancelled, it was just not in production during those years. So, technically, the BBC can say whatever they want about McCoy's tenure. DonQuixote (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The way the BBC presents the "facts" about the series can't necessarily be considered absolute truth. Otherwise, we'd just let them write this article. :) --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the whole point of references and citations is to have verifiable references for specific claims. The listing of McCoy as lasting through 1996 and McGann as 1996 *only* is properly cited to the BBC's official site - as are all the other listings, so the listing *is* consistently applied. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that could be cited that reference exactly when Sylvester McCoy appeared as the Doctor, and when he didn't. The idea that the BBC could be the only "proper" source for this is ludicrous. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Doesn't make it a fact. However, an official source should take precedence over any others, in *my* opinion - and apparently in a few other editors opinions as well. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an official source should take precedence in most cases, but not when it clearly distorts the reality. We all know that Sylvester McCoy did not appear as the Doctor in the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, and to claim otherwise in this article is false and misleading. The way this reads right now, McCoy had a longer tenure as the Doctor than any other actor (9 years vs. Tom Baker's 7), and that's simply not true. The purpose of this article, as any Wikipedia article, is to present the facts in an unbiased a manner as possible. I stand by what I said before - the BBC should not be the *only* resource for this information, especially when it's false or biased. Numerous other sources (not to mention anyone who was alive during that time) demonstrate McCoy's tenure as the Doctor as having a "break" between 1989 and 1996. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it distorts reality depends on what you mean by "tenure". If you mean tenure as in "appearing onscreen", then you're right. If you mean "tenure" as in "holding the rôle for any projects that may come up, including just to regenerate into the next guy"...well, that's the BBC's position. If you like, we can clarify between "tenure" vs "onscreen appearances". DonQuixote (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's get past the semantics of using "tenure" because that's really not relevant - sorry if I introduced that word to the discussion. The article currently says "Seventh Doctor, played by Sylvester McCoy (1987–1996)" which, as I stated before is simply not true; The character of "The Doctor" was not "played by" Sylvester McCoy during that entire range of years. If everybody else thinks these listings should be some statement on who was the "official" Doctor during this break in the series, then the wording needs to change - because it's simply not accurate as it is stated. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's not have "(1987–1996, although there was no new material between 1990 and 1995)"-that's far too wordy. "(1987-1989, 1996)" is what it was before, is the simplest and is accurate.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see what purpose it serves except to try to mimic what the BBC has on their site in some way. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be the official site which states that McCoy was the Doctor between 1987 -1996 Deckchair (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this would be the encyclopedia that seeks to be factually accurate. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And the BBC site is inaccurate how? McCoy appeared on screen as the Doctor between 1987 & 1996 and was the only actor to play the role on screen in oifficial productions during these dates until replaced by McGann. Maybe you dont like it, but it is not inaccurate and as the official site it take precedence over what you may prefer to be the case. Deckchair (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1987-1996 suggests McCoy played the role for 9 straight years (longer than Tom Baker) which is obviously not the case, so it is inaccurate.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The BBC site IS inaccurate. This has nothing to do with preferences or what I like. Encyclopedia. Facts. End of story. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, no other actor played the doctor on screen between these dates. Secondly the correct use of references and citations means that we have a verifiable reference for this claim. The listing shows that McCoy lasted from 1987 through to 1996 and is a properly cited claim from the BBC's official site. THe BBC are the producers, copywrite holders etc. and in a position to make a statement that can be taken as facts. A listing showing McCoy as doctor between 1987 to 1996 is properly applied as it comes from a verifiable source. If you believe strongly enough that the BBC are incorrect in their claim then please provide a verifiable claim from an official source. Alternatively contact the BBC and point out their error Deckchair (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC's purpose is different. They may have any number of reasons or agendas for listing it that way (and it's inconsistent - see my last revision to the reference). But the ONLY purpose of this article is to be accurate and informative. Also, there's a specific context listed in this article next to that info. The bottom line is that this article simply cannot claim that McCoy was continuously performing as the Doctor for 9 years. Do you reallllly need to see some references to back that up? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but i feel you last argument is speculative. Stating that "they may have any number of reasons" also begs the retort that the use of "may" is speculation. No-one is stating that McCoy was continuously performing as the Doctor for 9 years. We are simply reflecting the fact that McCoy was the doctor between 1987 & 1996 with a hiatus inbetween as has been shown on the official BBC site. Also your cite only showed the series / programmes that McCoy appeared in before the break so is extremley inacurate - you forgot to add a link the the TV movie which shows that the Doctor regenerated (and the actors changed to reflect this) Deckchair (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you ARE suggesting -- check that, openly stating -- that McCoy played continuously for those years when you put 1987-1996 after "Seventh Doctor, played by Sylvester McCoy". That's NOT TRUE. I don't care if your source is the Queen of England. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shubop... here. Let me cite some examples. There is a videotaped interview of Patrick McGoohan (from Canadian TV, 1977) in which he states that he did "54" episodes of Danger Man, a UK spy programme (or two, but that's another debate) in which he starred. However, there is no reasonable, reality-based way to get a count of 54, no matter how you break down the two runs and the various seasons, yet McGoohan (the star, and he directed a few episodes as well) said it. That's a first hand source, and it is irrefutably wrong. There have been a significant number of authoritative television reference books which have flatly stated that one of the actresses who played Catwoman on the 1960s Batman TV programme was "Lee Ann Meriwether," but this is doubly wrong. While "Ann" is her legal middle name, she hadn't used it in her professional billing since the 1950s (perhaps not since her reign as Miss America), and her sole appearance as that villainess was in a big-screen spin-off, which was not an episode compilation but an original, all-new feature film (I fully intend to do something about her being listed flatly as "Catwoman #2" on the template for that series, as well as check the three related articles to that point). Finally, the Wiki-article The Green Hornet, attributed a statement to the developer/original writer of the NOW Comics version of that property, Ron Fortier, that the owner, The Green Hornet, Inc., not liking his (along with artist Jeff Butler) making the modern-era version of the character Kato a woman led to the comic being cancelled. An examination of those comic books themselves proves conclusively that this didn't happen; the character was quickly pulled and replaced with "the Bruce Lee Kato" (assistant editor Diane Piron's words on the occasion; see those articles for the full cite), and the series ran until the company ceased operations, nearly five years later. Admittedly, there was no citation for Fortier's alleged claim, but the existence of one would not have made me the least bit hesitant in replacing the passage with the accurate account anyway. A good, even official (and Danger Man star/director McGoohan and Green Hornet comic book developer/original writer Fortier being first-hand are virtually official), source is not above being challenged, not if "the purpose of this article is to be accurate and informative," as Shubop... said and no one disputed. McCoy was demonstrably not canon-active between 1989 and 1996, and so should not be listed as being the Doctor through that period. Ted Watson (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources can be challenged, and in many cases should be, but at the moment Shubop has not come up with a credible alternative citation and the comments on not caring what the source is only seems to show a petulant manner towards anything which does not tally with his/her view of things. Obviously if someone came up with a cast iron claim from the most impeccable of sources this would still not be good enough as it does not fit shubops personal universe. I accept your points Tbrittreid but the retorts and edits made by others were just not up to scratch. My point has been that the cite i gave was an excellent source under wikipedia rules and this source has been pooh-poohed as "just wrong" Deckchair (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because it is wrong. At least in the context you're trying to use it in. If the article listed time periods over which each were considered to be "The Official Doctor whose images were licensed as the face of the Doctor Who brand and used for merchandise" then you could cite that. But like I've said a billion times - that's not what THIS article says. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No the cite i gave is not incorrect. It shows that between 1989 & 1996 McCoy played the Doctor, and in fact this is absolutely correct. Between these dates McCoy was the only person to play the Doctor in a canon production until McGann took over. Whether he played him in 1992, 1993 etc is not relevant. McCoy was the actor who played the role between these dates.Deckchair (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the core disagreement we are having is whether "1987-1996" means "Between 1987 and 1996" or "1987 through 1996". But for clarity's sake, I agree with Pawnkingthree that it should be left as it is ("1987-89, 1996"). --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the answer to the meaning of the dash punctuation: "to indicate a closed range (a range with clearly defined and non-infinite upper and lower boundaries) of values, such as those between dates, times, or numbers." Thus, it is the entire range of time that is being represented ("through"), not a non-specific time between the two years ("between") --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That McCoy first played the Doctor in 1987 and last played him in 1996 is a fact. That he played the Doctor from 1987 to 1989 and again in 1996 is also a fact. Thus "1987-1996" and "1987-89, 1996" are both just different ways are describing what is effectively the same thing. We don't need a source to tell us which is the better, we can just decide for ourselves. The fact that the BBC site chooses to go one way doesn't mean we have to. I would argue that the latter is the better way. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But that's not what this article says. The BBC site simply says "Sylvester McCoy: 1987-1996". The Wiki article here lists the period in which the Doctor was "played by" each respective actor. There's no reason to cite an alternate source. It is a known fact by anyone who knows anything about this series that McCoy did not "play" the Doctor in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC source is not an alternative source. It is just one that you dont agree with. Please explain how it is alternative. Also to say that "anyone who knows anything about this series...." is original research and not within wikipedia guidelines and therefore not a basis for an article or claim within an article. Deckchair (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I mean an alternate source to the BBC site. You had asked that I provide other sources to back up my arguments. Anyway, you can't seriously tell me that the fact that McCoy did not play the Doctor during that time period is "original research" and therefore not valid??? We all know this to be true.--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Against my better judgement :) I added more sources that demonstrate that McCoy was not playing the Doctor in 1990-1995, per Deckchair's suggestion. There are an excessive amount of reference footnotes there now, and to be honest it looks ridiculous now. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The IMDB citation is possibly the only one that will have any credence (although IMDB takes subissions from the public and can be amended at their request - I know, i have done it in the past when they have shown incorrect information) . I believe that the SylvesterMccoy site is a fan site and is certainly unofficial and i do not believe it to fall within wikipedia guidlines. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we all just agree to leave it "1987-89, 1996" so that there's no confusion? It's concise, accurate, and consistent with sources. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Deckchair's harping on the word "alternative" is telling. His "to say that 'anyone who knows anything about this series....' is original research" indicates an absurd definition of OR. Even if it is also Wiki's official definition, it wouldn't be any less absurd. As I've said on other talk pages here, to define it that pickily would deny us the option of taking a TV show or movie's credits down off the screen, but require us to get them second hand, from an in-depth book or magazine article about the production, which all too often get something wrong. One example: Quite a few such sources list Patrick McGoohan as "Executive Producer" on each and every one of the 17 episodes of his series The Prisoner, but that credit just does not exist on three or four of them (I'm doing this off the top of my head, and which number is the correct one is not really germaine to this discussion) and Wikipedia would be wrong to put those sources ahead of the actual on-screen credits. This would, however, be the unavoidable result of that definition of OR. The simple fact of the matter is that to list McCoy's tenure as "1987—1996" is highly misleading, something an encyclopedia should never be guilty of if it wishes to have credibility as a source of information. As for Deckchair's criticism of the IMDb, at least submissions to that site are vetted before they get posted, which is something Wiki cannot claim. I occasionally have a great deal of difficulty in getting some very good, solid, and accurate information I've submitted to them (sometimes repeatedly, but as per their regs) to go up. So that comment is more applicable here than to the IMDb. Ted Watson (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ten Doctors

Would information on Rich Morris' webcomic the Ten Doctors fit in anywhere on this page? --Xero (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a fan website. It's not notable --OZOO 12:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it's pretty amazing. Certainly notable. But it's not canon, and thus not appropriate to include on THIS article. I suggest it may belong on Doctor Who spin-offs. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking over Doctor Who spin-offs, I could be mistaken, but that would appear to be licensed spin-offs... if this is a fan-made, but unofficial, webcomic, I would say it doesn't belong there (*insert "slippery slope"/"opening the door to the all fanfiction" argument here*). The webcomic itself could be checked to see if it has independent notability - i.e., discussion in articles on webcomics, possibly discussion/recognition by DW producers/critics/etc.. Anyways, just my $0.02 as a new guy to the project --Umrguy42 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article suggestion

I found an edit on The Claws of Axos that I polished up, but had my doubts that it was a good idea at all, and posted a message about it here. As can be seen, that situation has been resolved, but in the process, I had an idea for another Doctor Who-related article and put it forth there (I have no idea how it can be possible to cut and paste from one page to another—two completely separate pages, not two fields on the same page—so I can only link here). However, I have also come to feel that this is a better venue for the question. So, how does it sound? Ted Watson (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heppitattamutu

Protect the page doctor who? - Ancient Wu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.1.103.73 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag in infobox

All TV show articles have flags in their infoboxes. I don't see why this one should'nt! WP:Flag in not totally clear on flags in infoboxes. Thanks TheProf - T / C 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television specifically shows an example flag in its specification. In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one, I suggest we go with the flow and keep it. If the argument prevails the other way, of course, those proposing it would be free to update that template & go round every single television programme removing the flags. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a compelling reason NOT to have one how about policy ? Wikipedia:Flags#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate, clear . Now just because other articles have it doesn't mean this article should be wrong . What does having a flag here add and no all TV shows/movies have them ,they are being removed slowly see South Park Gnevin (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is not clear. And the fact that Template:Infobox Television has one in its example is a good reason to keep it! As for the South Park article. In the infobox, [[United States]] should be changed to {{USA}}! I would do it right now, however, i feel it may lead to an edit war. Which i don't want to happen on any article! TheProf - T / C 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When policy is unclear, as it is here, consensus should prevail, and I propose we give sufficient time for a consensus to develop. This is, remember, a featured article, and it became one with the flag IIRC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and its logical corollary are never good reasons for making decisions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy is clear , Don't decorate!. I've removed the flag in Template:Infobox Television it was wrong . Just because other articles have flags doesn't mean they are correct . Please discuss the merits of the flag as applies here Gnevin (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's still in the template. How about you fight it out on the template's talk page and come back when you've got a leg to stand on? --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a little unfair. The policy is unclear as to what constitues decoration and what does not. However, from a purely practical point of view, it's arguably more constructive to challenge the policy where it is stated than to go round the entire encyclopedia applying a personal interpretation. I found that out when I practised law. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Don't decorate" is highly interpretive language, and its explanation is vague and badly phrased to the point of being almost useless in the original policy. Moreover the presence of the flag in the template would seem to both contradict one user's interpretation (operative word) that the flag is decoration and give considerable support to the majority position that the flag is appropriate. I would agree with the users who contend the policy should be challenged in its own context rather than in any given application. Moreover I would further the argument of the majority that the presence of the flag on the template constitutes use within WP:Flag guidelines. Your interpretation of the policy is that the flag is decoration. The majority interpretation is that it is not. Consensus is well established, and around these parts, majority rules. --Drmargi (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Don't decorate" is rather easy to interpret. For example, what does the flag supply that the words "United Kingdom" doesn't? Pretty much everyone who reads WP can read whereas there is no guarantee that they know the flags of the world. To add a flag and a country name is superfluous and unnecessary. This is much more a nationalism thing than encyclopaedic and should therefore be stamped out. --WebHamster 04:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Before this gets too heated, a few points. One, Wikipedia doesn't operate by the idea of "majority rules", which is quite different from consensus. Second, WP:FLAG isn't a policy; it began as an essay and has since become a guideline under the Manual of Style. (To quote, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article.") Third, inclusion in the template does not reflect consensus about the use of flags. It is just a line of code in the template, and as very few editors actually get involved in the design of templates it cannot really be taken as consensus for anything. (There was a discussion on the template talk page about the use of flags back in January. Opinions were split, and no consensus appears to have developed.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all very borderline personal and incivil . I've yet too hear what the flag adds to the article.I've yet to told what this adds here .Why do we need the flag here? '

Don't decorate and it's important points here Flag and other icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information, and is often simply distracting (example). Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustrationGnevin (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion here, on the template discussion page. Until consensus one way or the other is reached, current guidelines should be kept to, and the guidelines for this template state that flag icons should be used. _TalkIslander 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source needed

User:Avandriwala has added - Russel T. Davies has said that it's most likely that there will be a series every two years with a gap of three specials every other year. - into the article. I'd like to request a source please. Thanks TheProf - T / C 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The article is missing lots of material

We need material on the philosophy and nature of the Time Lords. We need information on The Doctor's home world Gallifrey. We need attention to the fact The doctor is a pacifist and never resorts to violence, (which is rare in TV Sci Fi). We need a FULL episode list. And we need a catalogue for all the various species encountered by the doctor. A lot of work needs done here folks.--Redblossom (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See the bottom of the article; you'll see a navigation box linking all important articles relating to Doctor Who. — Edokter • Talk • 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, terrible eyesight!! Found the links. Thanks.--Redblossom (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time for Featured Article Review?

According to the Article's Milestone section there has not been a WP:FAR since the article was granted Featured Article status four years ago. Considering the new shows and in universe information produced, the subsequent increased media exposure due to new shows, and some of the objections raised in the Discussion Page above, I would ask if anyone else thinks its time for a formal review of the article. In all honestly, I think the simple amount of time from when it was first rated should be a superseding factor for a third party review. If there are no strong objections, I will suggest this article for FAR in a weeks time. Zidel333 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An FAR would probably be a good idea in the near future, but may I suggest that you hold off for a couple months, until after the current series has finished airing in the UK? The editors who work on Doctor Who-related articles are focused on the articles for new episodes right now (and have already succeeded in getting the first episode of this season, Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), to FA status). It would be a shame if the energies which have been so successful in keeping new episode articles to the highest quality were to be split by having an FAR at the same time. If we could wait on an FAR until around July, then the editors could give the FAR the full attention it would deserve. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its been over a week, and I agree with you Josiah Rowe. Is mid July, say July 15th OK for you? Zidel333 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, and it's highly civil of you to set a planned date for a FAR. Many featured article reviewers are not so considerate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, I'm glad that we came to an agreement so easily. And I must say that I look forward to the review in July. :) Zidel333 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good longterm goal for those of us editing the article, allowing us to focus on the episode articles in the meantime. As it stands, 4 years between FA status and a FAR is a very long time per Wikipedia standards, especially for a topic under which so much has happened (two new Doctors, half a dozen new companions, two spinoffs, etc.) I wonder if there should be a general rule for FACing articles every N years? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serials vs Episodes

I guess I have two points here. First off, why are both linked? Second, why do both even exist? They seem to exist more due to the fact that "serials" and "episodes" are used to mean the same thing on different sides of the ocean. Frankly, the list of serials looks much better done. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean List of titled Doctor Who episodes? It exists because that list containt all episode title being part of a serial, which are not listed in List of Doctor Who serials. — Edokter • Talk • 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. For the first three years Doctor Who was on the air, each episode had an individual title, but nearly all episodes were part of longer serials of between 3 and 12 episodes. In 1966, the producers stopped giving each episode an individual title and started calling them "episode 1" or "part 3" (it changed over the years). That was the standard until Doctor Who was cancelled in 1989. When the series was brought back in 2005, the producers returned to giving each episode an individual title, in part because most stories consisted of only one episode. Two-part stories (and, last year, one three-part story) were still part of the mix, but now they no longer have an overall title. Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Edit

I'm reverting this previous edit due to it's nonsensical nature. Replacing a simple space with   and yet taking out — for "-"? Is your mind not made up on the argument of simple text or wiki code? I would go back in and replace the — in the name of simplicity, and at some point I actually will. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Spencer

Please could anyone with information help to improve the new article Roy Spencer (actor) - he appeared in 8 episodes. Thanks. --  Chzz  ►  22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Added the two Doctor Who stories he appeared in. -TonyW (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award Winning

It's in pretty bad Wiki-taste to have an opening sentence read "award-winning." The Film Style Guidelines pretty specifically advise against it, and WP:PEACOCK also comes into mind, but I'm not aware of any Television Style Guidelines that would specifically apply to this. I also know there are some avid, OWNy editors that watch this page, so I figured I'd state my case here before editing, or just let someone else remove it, in an effort to avoid an edit war. There's never a reason to call something 'award-winning.' Just state the awards and significance, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusion. Tool2Die4 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darbyshire composer

Delia Derbyshire was not the composer of the Who theme. She arranged and performed it. Grainer was happy to share composition credit with her, but wasn't allowed to (she was staff). We wouldn't credit Murray Gold with composing it for his orchestral version. The debt should be acknoweldged, but not by pretending she wrote it. She didn't. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Grainer was happy to share composition credit with her" - well, there's your answer. It's not a matter of whether she was officially credited at the time... the fact is that the credited composer clearly stated that she deserved part of the credit for the composition due to her work. The fact that a work-for-hire policy at the time forbade her from receiving on-screen credit (other than being credit as part of the Radiophonic Workshop entity) doesn't change the verifiable fact that she was actually a composer of the theme. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not even an argument and is contrary to the facts. Grainer could have felt his dog deserved a co-composition credit and been foiled by the Not A Human Being rule. If he wanted to share credit with his arranger fine, he didn't pass away for two decades following the premiere and the theme was in constant reissue on vinyl. He didn't. It is not verifiable that she was a co-composer; Grainer is known to have composed it on his piano and brought in a tape of his playing and a score with notations such as "bubbles". If you know in contrary to what witnesses say, and can prove this belief that she was a secret composer of the piece, can you please describe the passages she was soley/partly/not responsible for?MartinSFSA (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the composition is actually credited to "Ron Grainer and the BBC Radiophonic Workshop". The credit to BBCRW exists because of BBC's policy against crediting its own members (and thus allowing them to profit from royalties). There are a thousand sources that verify historical accounts of the events that took place between Grainer's original score and the final piece of music (Grainer: "Did I write that?") which can serve as sources for the fact that she played the crucial role of co-composer and arranger, which is what warrants the credit to BBCRW, and so, I stand by my assertion that she should be credited by name. As for the bit about the dog, well, that's just a ridiculous analogy. This is not solely about what Grainer "wanted." --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand ever more firmly by the dog (no I don't; don't know he had one), but I've both given away authorial credit and published on this subject (the answer was no).MartinSFSA (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence of her authorship is that she (her estate) is apparently collecting royalties on the composition through her publishing agreement via "UNIVERSAL MUSIC-MGB SONGS". A quick ASCAP search will reveal her credited as writer on several entries of "Doctor Who Signature Theme" etc. Apparently at some point, Grainer did share authorship after all. In summary:

• Grainer himself has stated that she should have originally been jointly credited with him as a composer. [record of this history here]
• In several sources, the composer is credited to "Ron Grainer and the BBC Radiophonic Workshop". This is clearly in reference to Derbyshire's contribution, albeit anonymously. If the composition were entirely Grainer's, there would be no need to credit the performer or producer in this manner.
• Derbyshire is listed via ASCAP as a credited writer.

--Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellant piece of research (although I'm not finding it here, and of a different order to the in house credit and Grainer's quote. However, it's still at variant with my source which was Tristram Cary. He was quite firm on who the composer was, although he felt she had put in most of the effort, as a fellow electronics person. This debate I liken to the James Bond theme, which has had the same claims of uncredited composition. I'm impressed enough that I think you should add this to the Doctor Who Theme entry! MartinSFSA (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The listings for Derbyshire are here... but, oddly, there are several variations that not only don't list Ron Grainer as a co-writer (only Derbyshire), but one actually includes Patrick Kingsland as a co-writer on something called "DOCTOR WHO NEW SIGNATURE TUNE RECORD". Also, there are likewise many listings that show Grainer as the sole writer of different, but similarly titled compositions such as "Opening Dr Who" as shown here. At the risk of challenging my own research, this makes me question this a bit.... --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Score! I was willing to cede the point if you could demonstrate she collected royalties on any version she hadn't performed or arranged as it would make the difference academic but this is an instant article.MartinSFSA (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I understand what you're saying (lots of contradicting negatives there... you lost me). But, as far as I can see, she is not credited by name as the performer or arranger - only as "writer" - but in all of the entires, the BBC Radiophonic Workshop is credited as the performer - of which she was a part. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, another source for Grainer's attempts at giving her co-composer credit at the time is here --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I take Tristram Cary's account as paramount is his proximity to the events, his knowledge as a contemporaneous working electronic composer and his description of the physical evidence. However, if you have proven that Derbyshire collected royalties on versions of the theme which do not draw upon her performance or arrangement then this is tacit acknowledgement of her identification as composer--particularly as it dates back to Grainer's own life. Thanks for the cross note in the theme entry.MartinSFSA (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare this to the Adagio in G minor entry; it deserves research. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] episode 4.12 of the latest season

Why hasn't that episode been named yet? Isn't it a little odd for that episode to not have a name, yet the season finale does? dposse (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only the BBC knows... — Edokter • Talk • 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It was deemed "too spoilery", which, now that the title has been released, would seem to have been pretty transparently the marketing ploy that most people probably suspected in the first place. Sure it's a bit spoilery once we've expressly been told that it's a big spoiler, but if it had just been released with the rest of the titles on the list it wouldn't have been anymore spoilery than "Last of the Time Lords" or "Planet of the Ood". Binabik80 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)