Talk:Doctor Who story chronology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 July 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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.

[edit] Attack of the Graske

Is there any reason why Attack of the Graske was removed? StuartDD 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I thing because it was considered a video game- it was removed at the same time. --OZ OO (What?) 18:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it because it was the video equivalent of a gamebook. The BBC website seems to agree it's a game. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's game. So, it takes place between The Christmas Invasion and New Earth. Removeing it from the list is just makeing an error. VitasV 27/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:52, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

It was first made available after The Christmas Invasion, yes, but I doubt you can source it as taking place strictly between that and New Earth, even if we were including games. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Though still leave it there as it is part of the story chronology and when watching it you can see that the Doctor simply left Rose in a different time and went back to get her which then starts the events of New Earth. You never had this trouble before and you kept it up on the list so why take it off now. So please reframe from removeing it. VitasV 27/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 08:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, my life doesn't revolve around tidying up after you. Had I known the games had been added, they would've gone a lot sooner. Games, whether they're produced for interactive television, PCs or RPG manuals, do not belong on a list that deals with actual narratives. I mean, we don't include the licensed stuff by FASA, or the Dalek or K-9 games on the BBC site. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a separate section for video games, with a line stating where they lie in the chronology? That way we would keep them in the arcticle as part of the chronology, but would be still be separate from the main adventures. StuartDD 10:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why put video games in the article when it's not an article about video games? I don't see that Vitas's bad case of WP:OWN is something that needs to be pandered to. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Jane Smith

I propose creating a Sarah Jane Smith section, as the 'Other Adventures' section is quite large, and as she has 21 stories in total; K-9 and Company, 4 short stories, everything (9) in Category:Sarah Jane Smith audio plays, "School Reunion", and all of The Sarah Jane Adventures. I propose the SJS stories into their own section. What does anyone else think? --OZ OO (What?) 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove them. This article is about the Doctor, not Sarah Jane. Wry Spy 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a way we can do this. We can crete a page called Sarah Jane Adventures story chronology though it will not include Sarah Jane Smith and K9 and Company. We can also create a page called: Torchwood story chronology. VitasV 27/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:05, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

We could, but please don't. Those shows don't include a whole lot of time travel, really, so those lists wouldn't be much more than a list of the episodes in order, with the novels thrown in. --Brian Olsen 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Though Torchwood will with all the episodes and novels. VitasV 27/8/07

We could split the "other adventures" section into smaller sections. "Unknown Doctor" (which would also cover Future Doctors). The reason for the Sarah Jane stories in "other adventures" is because of the lack of anywhere else to put them. I agree with putting these in a separate section. The "unoficial canon" adventures would also get a separtae section. StuartDD 10:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"Remove them. This article is about the Doctor, not Sarah Jane." - I agree, but the ones listed are Doctor Who stories in the various short trips. While they do not have The Doctor, they are still Doctor Who stories. "Mission to the Unknown" is listed, and it doesn't feature the Doctor. StuartDD 10:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated the section to split it up, with a short note before each to explain why they are placed there. Feel free to improve the lead if neccesary. StuartDD 11:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Games, again

For some reason, the video games have been re-added. Colour me surprised. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are spin-off material then why does no official source (Doctor Who reference Guide, Outpost Gallifrey OR The Discontinuity Guide) list them as such. Maybe because they're not!!!! - they are merchandise. Are you really suggesting we inlced all the merchandise games? Don't try and threaten me. Incase you haven't noticed, I am THE FOURTH person to remove the games after Digby, Ozoo and Ckatz. You are extremely arrogant and cannot admit that you are wrong. It was the same with The Doctor Who movie, and the monsters. You are determined to get your own way. So not only will I remove them, I will report you FOR VANDALISM. StuartDD 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

VistasV, none of the three sources list the games. Please DO NOT ADD THEM AGAIN. THEY ARE NOT SPIN-OFF MATERRIAL. They ARE MARCHANDISE. StuartDD 09:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The reference guides don't list them bacause they keep forgeting to. I'm sure if you keep e-mailing them until you get a response to add the video games which they should. --VitasV 04:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So you think we should add Dalek attack when the person can play as any of three doctors then? if the doctor involved in the story is not fixed, then how can it fit in a story line. I'd also suggest that they have put a lot more work into this than you realise. Since Outpost Gallifrey even tries to place in adventures only referred to in it's expanded universe guide, and ref guide puts a synopsis for all it's adventures, I would expect them to include the games if they thought that they should. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Messing it up"

By the way, in case other editors who've worked on this page are under the impression they've made some good edits, it seems our young colleague takes a dim view of our efforts:

"I propose that we make a page on all the Torchwood stories including the novels. I've already created a Doctor Who one called Doctor Who story chronology though it's already a mess as I'm the only one keeping it up with other people messing it up."

--Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I take a dim view of your efforts. You keep getting rid of Destiny of the Doctors, Dalek Attack, Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror and Attack of the Graske. They are part of the chronology and also it seems people think that Torchwood is not Doctor Who. It seems some of you haven't read most of the stories or took a great deal of attention to the stories. And now I'm getting a bad feeling that some of you are just cruel to me. I know where most of the stories are placed even if no one knows where they go. VitasV 28/8/07

Well I might jsut revert the page back to how it was before I added the references, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth doctor sectons. Just to show how much I've messed it up. I have reported him for vandalism. StuartDD 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitas, games aren't stories; they revolve around the player(s) (or their avatar(s)), not fictional characters whose unreality is independent of the viewer. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"people think that Torchwood is not Doctor Who." - While it is a spin-off and related to Doctor Who, it is not Doctor Who. StuartDD 11:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here it is - proof of just how much we've all messed this article up on here. That's how the page was before we came in an messed up VistasV's work.
And just to further the point - take a look at what Vistas has done on Torchwood story chronology without us messing it up. (deleted for having no real content) - origonal post StuartDD 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC) - edited to include brackets StuartDD 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah how it looked like before with my changes looked great. It was okay for people to add stuff but now with you controling what I do is just bad. What ever you do you think it's perfect, it's great. Your just cruel. VitasV 29/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 00:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed how many different people are making these edits you don't like? When it's you against everybody, you seriously need to consider why everybody disagrees with you. Come on, you have something to feel good about. You created an article that a lot of people find interesting enough to edit. Wryspy 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"What ever you do you think it's perfect, it's great. Your just cruel." -
To quote Monica Geller from Friends - "If I shout at you, it's only because you're doing it wrong". -
We are NOT being cruel, and we are not simply deleting things for the sake of it. Certain standards have to be met on Wikipedia, as it is an ENCYCLOPEDIA.
To quote myself in Chronology of the Doctor Who universe "You do not add everything to a list of fiction, just because the fiction shares the same name"
Applying that to this case, we should not include the games because this article does warrant the inclusion of games (as was explained to you pretty clearly). We are not controlling it, we are just making sure that the standards of wiki are kept.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DELETE CONTENT IF IT MET THE STANDARDS OF WIKIPEDIA.
And I certainly don't think what I do is perfect, or didn't you notice the "please improve" message I left regarding the leads on the "other adventures" section. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Just to let people know, we are now
"doing unessesary edits and for some reason they wont include alot of Doctor Who stories due to bizzare and idiotic reasons."
I assume he's refering to the comics - so let's look at the "bizzare and idiotic reasons" for them not being included

"the earlier Marvel strips tended not to make use of television companions, and given that the later strips contain non-series companions alongside series companions." - (Digby)

"I'm against their inclusion, if only because of the fact that it's practaclly impossible to reconcile most of them with canon, for example the fact that John and Gillian were present during the 1st→2nd regeneration." - (OZOO)

"Leave them out because they just don't fit. There are too many contraditions.", "no effort is ever made to treat them even with questionable canonicity." - (Wryspy)

Condradicting the only official canon that Doctor Who actually has is a good enough reason for me not to include the comics.
StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mission to the Unknown

This is being extremely pernickity, but should we move Mission to the Unknown to the "no doctor" section? StuartDD 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see a case for doing so. As the TARDIS crew have no involvement with events in the episode, it could be argued that you can't consider it to have happened "before" any of the episodes which follow it, in reference to the Doctor's personal timeline. I'm leaning towards "Yes" on this one. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, it's being extremily pernickity. StuartDD 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No lets not. At the begining of the story you here the Doctor Who theme meaning the words Doctor Who will show up. Just like with the movie, THE WORDS DOCTOR WHO show up. VitasV 29/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VitasV (talk • contribs) 00:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wryspy 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitas may be alluding to my explanation of why the TVM is called Doctor Who and not The Movie. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes "Doctor Who" shows up - which is why it IS a doctor who story, but the short trips and other mateial listed in the "No Doctor" section are also Doctor who stories. As stated in the lead to that section,

"While the adventures below ARE DOCTOR WHO STORIES, they do not feature any doctor, and can therefore not be placed relavtive to other stories."

This does not feature a Doctor, so my question is, should we move it to that section? StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the "no Doctor" section just now. I've put the placement as "before The Daleks' Master Plan" - as it was as introduction to that serial, and must (logically) take place before the Doctor's invovlement in that serial. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets take a close look at the games Vistas wants to add

Dalek Attack

It allowed the player to play either the Second, Fourth or Seventh Doctors, with the option of a second player taking the role of Ace or Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart.

so you can play it in several different ways. Thus, it cannot count as proper chronology even IF we included games. Also, Vistas stated that it was refered to in another book, well it claims that Dalek Attack takes place in an alternate universe created by the Doctor whilst he is affected by energy from the Land of Fiction.

-In other words, It is not part of the same chronology So therefore, even if video games were included, this would not be able to be fitted.

Destiny of the Doctors

Having completed a task (out of a possible 28 tasks), the Graak then returns and gives the Master the item, or crosses a grid of tiles, or selects the true Doctor out of three possible choices, or similar. If the player fails, they will have to begin again (from the nearest Time Winder). If they succeed, they will have to face the Master in the Determinant. If they defeat the Master, that incarnation of the Doctor is freed:

-note here that the player can again play several different ways, as there are severral different tasks. The line of story followed depends on the player. It can therefore NOT be considered to be part of the chronology, as the story line can change

Attack of the Grakse

Two alternate endings, and different tasks for the player. Players may choose different endings, or get some of the tasks wrong. Therefore we again note that the story line depends on the player, and again state that it can NOT be considered part of the story line.

Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror

Regretably, there is no wiki page on this so I can't find out much about it. But I will assume again that the actions of the player determine the story line. While the same basic one might be followed, each player will be able to take slightly different paths. Hence, again, this can NOT be put in regular chronology as the story line depends on the player.

And I notcie t hat he is not including "Doctor Who: The First Adventure"or "Doctor Who and the Warlord"

and he is also not including all these. Why, because they are clearly not part of the chronology. Q.E.D. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to speak up for this idea, not for Dalek Attack and such like which allow you to pick one of three doctors, but for Attack of the Graske. Though the events which take place within the game may alternate as different actions are chosen by the player, the game can be said to take place within a chronology, as we know it takes place within a certain time-span (IE. Early Series Two). Furthermore, unlike Destiny of the Doctors, the player's actions have no adverse effects on the Doctor's adventures, even if the player loses, the Doctor saves the day and is free to travel on the rest of his adventures. My point is, that if one were going through the Tenth Doctor's adventures in order, no matter what the result of Attack of the Graske, that part of the chronology would still follow on from each other perfectly sensibly.

Destiny of the Doctors is much harder to reconcile, but I think some argument could be made, to say that the events of it are supposed to start within a certain time-frame. I see no point in trying to reconcile arcade games with no real narrative, but these two (and certainly Graske) deserve better treatment. --90.206.4.47 00:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I previously asked for a reason for not including Attack of the Graske (see above section with that title). The main reason is that it has two possible endings. But let's see what others think. StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone else find that comment suspicious.
1)It's that IP's first contribution - [1]
2)Ip's tend just to read pages. When they want somehting changed, they will usually just change it.
3)The fact that he has just happened to come to this page, happened to open up the talk page, and happened to post in this discussion - when IP's tend only to contribute to discussion after they've had edits reverted, or been told off for the material they include.
Any one else suspect VitasV is behind this? StuartDD ( t • c ) 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I considered that, but I checked WHOIS- The IP's in the UK, and Vitas is apparently in Australia. --OZ OO (What?) 16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I appologise to Vitas for accusing him. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack of the Graske (again)

So, should we have this. Personally I'm leaning to no. Basically, it is a game. The players actions may not affect it much, but the ending depends on the player. The Doctor still goes, but a story with two possible endings can't really fit into regular chronology.
Plus, I feal that there should be a definite "include all games" or "include no games" policy. Including some and not others in a list might turn into being a selection of the ones that you like - which could count as WP:POV. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

from the Discontinuity Guide - "It has to be treated as an amusing little bit of Christmas fun rather than a serious Doctor Who story and, taken on those terms, it's a reasonable success.". - I would agree with that statement. It doesn't really count as a story, so a definite "no include" from me now. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destiny of the Doctors

No, staight away.
For a start: "the events of it are supposed to start within a certain time-frame." - maybe, but without a reference for the position (which we don't have because no official source includes it) it violates WP:OR. And, as pointed out by our IP, "is much harder to reconcile". StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may defend myself from the comments above, I do have a wikipedia account (JLaidlaw), but find it tiresome to log on when I wish to check something. If I see something I think is a little odd, I usually question it. I also enjoy reading the talk pages, in order to understand how an article was formed, so maybe I am not like 'most IPs'. My limited understanding of IP addresses is that mine changes each time I connect, but I have regularly performed minor edits on certain articles. I should have thought that the fact I was using a different argument to VitasV and a different style of posting may have suggested we are not one of the same. Again, I can't really see the argument in not including Attack of the Graske, due to my argument given above, the chronology doesn't really change, the story doesn't really have two different endings. However, I also feel there are other reasons that Graske could not be described as a video game. It is better described as a television episode (albeit an interactive episode)- it features full title sequence, a credit list and an intertitle and writer credit, whilst according to the Doctor Who Website and Magazine, Graske was treated as a whole mini-episode. I'm also not sure Video Games win BAFTAs. I don't think it can be dismissed as 'Merchandise' as it has never been made commercially available. It also attempts to fit within the canon, and succeeds rather well. Again, It does not disrupt any overarching story, any more than the removal of The Idiot's Lantern would disrupt the overarching story of Doctor Who. There is one reason I can think of for keeping it out, and that is that there is no clear positioning for the episode. Though in broadcast order, it should come after the Christmas Invasion, It is presumably after New Earth, as the implication in that episode is that it is the Tenth Doctor and Rose's first adventure. Such discussion would constitute Original Research. That said, most of the article could be described as Original Research. My suggestion would be to place it in the section for an unestablished chronology, though with a note to the effect that it takes place during Season Two. However, I would seperate such things as A Fix With The Sontarans from The Peter Cushing Movies, as the former is clearly supposed to take place within the Who Universe at some point, whereas the latter is alternate. It'd be nice to hear a few thoughts90.206.4.47 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"If I may defend myself from the comments above" sorry, I didn't mean to insult you personally. I wasn't meaning to suggest that IP's can't do helpful edits - because some do.

As I said in the above mini section, I feel that Attack of the Grakse does count as a game. The outcome may not affect the overall chronology, but the player can still pick two endings. But I am open to including this, because it is different from the other video games as it was intended for broadcast - albeit in different format.

"However, I would seperate such things as A Fix With The Sontarans from The Peter Cushing Movies, as the former is clearly supposed to take place within the Who Universe at some point, whereas the latter is alternate." - I would agree with that one. There is actually a note on Fix about the attempt to bring it into chronology.

StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"That said, most of the article could be described as Original Research." The placements are all referenced by Outpost Gallifrey, Doctor Who reference Guide, or from the episode/ novel/ audio itself. StuartDD ( t • c ) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcast order

After CzechOut stating that we assume broadcast order is chronological (see the second requested move), I felt I should explain why we use broadcast order, so I have now given a reference (at Unearthly Child) to eplain the placement of T.V stories in broadcast order. While I think that Doctor Who reference Guide using broadcast order for Love and Monsters and Blink is wrong, placing them anywhere else without a reference violates WP:POV and WP:OR. I am hoping that Outpost Gallifrey will update soon (it doesn't have series 2/3 listings) as it is usually more acurate when it comes to imvlovements in other stories. Bassically, untill an official recognises that the scenes are not in broadcast order, that's what we have to use. If someone knows of an official source for the placements of those scenes, then please update the placements. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The tables

At the top of the tables, there are lines before the list starts:

Story Name	Format


example	example

Anyone know how to fix this? StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it need fixing? Sorry, but I'm not sure what the problem is. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with those lines. Wryspy 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Sceptre has corrected it now. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comics

Recent edits have seen the inclusion, and removal, of some comics. Before this article goes into another eidt war, Should this article include comics? When starting the 7th to 10th doctor sections, I left them out becasue other sections did not include them. Do comics really count as spin-off material anyway? I don't think so. StuartDD ( t • c ) 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What concerns me is how they can be sourced to fit into the chronology. There seems to be a degree of original research in placing them where they were, especially given that the earlier Marvel strips tended not to make use of television companions, and given that the later strips contain non-series companions alongside series companions. If there's no source, then I'd lean towards leaving them out. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that both Doctor Who reference Guide and Outpsot Gallifrey have them listed. And they are listed on the spin off page. There are a huge number though, and it it would make some of the sections extremely large. StuartDD ( t • c ) 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm against their inclusion, if only because of the fact that it's practaclly impossible to reconcile most of them with canon, for example the fact that John and Gillian were present during the 1st→2nd regeneration. There's also the fact that, as StuartDD says, the sections would get quite large. --OZ OO (What?) 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave them out because they just don't fit. There are too many contraditions. They would make the article too large to be useful. Anybody who wants to see how they might fit in can go to the external sources. Furthermore, no effort is ever made to treat them even with questionable canonicity. Sometimes the audio plays and novels are treated as possible canon by the producers, but not the comics. Including them might even violate Wikipedia policy because we would then be too closely reproducing someone else's lists. Wryspy 21:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh yes they do fit. You just don't want them in there for some crazy reason. VitasV 19/9/07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you were a little more polite, i might take you seriously. StuartDD ( t • c ) 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also add - and I've told you this before - that I couldn't see Why they were removed, so started this thing to ask for a reason. The reasons given are that they don't fit. I am more inclined to believe them than you, because you have a history of making violent comments if you can't get your way - a history which your above comment appears to follow. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But they fit. And I can't see any reasons why they shouldn't be there. They are as much part of the list as the Books and Audios.VitasV 20/9/07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if they actually do fit, then they should be in. But we have three users above saying they don't fit. Lets see what they say first. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my previous comments. --OZ OO (What?) 10:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just been having a quick look at some of the placements on ref guide. usually, they explain why they place an adventure somewhere, and use the synopsis to explain the placement - but in some of them there is no explanation to the placement. Also, the sorting of the Ninth Doctor Comics is by Rose's hair style!!!! - If we are going to include them, then I want a source that orders them better than by hair styles. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Reference style

I have now changed the references to the format on Chronology of the Doctor Who universe. The page was bulky with a reference for each entry, so I have just kept the general ones, and put Outpost Gallifrey and Doctor Who reference Guide as general ones. The only ones I have kept as they ones for the Eighth Doctor (as that explains that it is unclear where the Big Finish Audios are placed), and Infinite Quest to show that it was not broadcast in that position. StuartDD ( t • c ) 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the sections?

Should we split the doctor sections into smaller ones for ease of reading? The trouble is, there's no easy division. I'd suggest by television season, but not all the things listed were broadcast as part of a season - and where do you put the ones set between seasons?
Any one with any ideas? StuartDD ( t • c ) 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No lets not. VitasV 19/9/07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no good way to divide the sections up, so don't. Dividing by seasons doesn't make sense when we have all the non-TV stuff included. Wryspy 05:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to split up the sections by season

"The trouble is, there's no easy division. "I'd suggest by television season, but not all the things listed were broadcast as part of a season".

I just felt that some (particularly the Eighth Doctor) are a little long, and was wondering if anyone had any good ideas of splitting them up. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to divide them by Tardis crew? IE, for Tom Baker, we have first The 4th Doctor, Sarah and Harry, followed by The 4th Doctor and Sarah; The 4th Doctor Alone; The 4th Doctor and Leela; The 4th Doctor Alone; The 4th Doctor and Romana I/Romana II; The 4th Doctor, Romana II and Adric; The 4th Doctor and Adric. I'm not sure whether that would wor all that wel, but it's the best division I can come up with--90.206.4.47 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That might work. I wouldn't include a section for every possible companion grouping (as there are quite a lot) - so all the Romana ones would be in one section rather than several different groups. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Still lets keep it as it is. Lets not go and mess it up. VitasV 20/9/07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The list needs dividing up for ease of reading, but I won't divide it into anything until we have consensus on a division. I'm not stuck on any division myself - as there is no easy divide. So for the moment the list will stay. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's one idea that I tried in the Sandbox. I realise Seasons is not appropriate - I'm just giving an example. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Doing that will just mess it up more. Lets just leave it in the order it is. --VitasV 08:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How does splitting something to make it easier to read "mess it up"? Surely it would help people find positions for material much easier than one huge long block. The sections are too big, and they will only get bigger as Doctor Who is on going. StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, it's already easy to read as it is. This is not your website so why care how big the page gets I mean who cares if it's so long. We're not writing a book here. --VitasV 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"why care how big the page gets" - I'm concerned for people who come to this looking for something, and I would like them to be able to find it easily.

"This is not your website" - I realise that. I hope you do to. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think seasons is the best idea. I've created a test here, which can be used to find the perfect distinction (at present it is seperated by seasons) --OZ OO (What?) 13:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, I'd go for that. Just a few minor things "The TV movie" is probally not the best header to use, and you would not need to divide Ninth Doctor as he only had one series. Also, "Season 23" should include Mysterious Planet and Mindwarp, and "Season 23B" is probally better as somthing else. StuartDD ( t • c ) 14:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

ignore the last suggestion. StuartDD ( t • c ) 09:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I changed S23, but can't think of better titles for 23B and TVM- If you can think of one, feel free to change it. I seperated New Series One for consistancy. --OZ OO (What?) 10:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"I seperated New Series One for consistancy." - yes, good idea come to think about it. - 23B is probally the best option. I'll have a think about a better title for TVM. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed TVM, to be consistant with this page- What do you think?--OZ OO (What?) 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's great as it is even though it's still missing ALOT of stuff so can we just leave it as it is. So what if a person finds it hard to navigate, that's why we've got a contents box at the top of the page which I think is enough help as it is. And I do relise this is not my site and I know you this is not your site though some how I find it very hard to beleive, always makeing sure what I edit, always arguing about my actions and never seem to agree what I think and do. Exactly! --VitasV 11:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is getting out of hand, this is certantly not what i'd expect from a wikipedia discussion, you will have to come to a respectful understanding a decide what to do, a vote if it is really needed. --Wiggstar69 11:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"always arguing about my actions and never seem to agree what I think and do." - at the risk of breaking wiki policy, that sounds remarkably like yourself. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"What do you think?" - looks good - i'd go with that StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"come to a respectful understanding a decide what to do, a vote if it is really needed." - I started this section to see if there were any good ideas. If we can't get agreement on one then I'll accept the current one. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See, your not agreeing with what I'm saying. This idea isn't gonna make this page any better, it's just gonna create more clutter. You also still are missing many Doctor Who stories that for some strange reason. --VitasV 08:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the page needs tidied up a little, but since we can't get an agreement, I'll accept the current format.

"You also still are missing many Doctor Who stories that for some strange reason." - It's been explained to you pretty clearly WHY we aren't including them (In regards to the comics, I'm still waiting for the other users to explain there views in the above section). Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"See, your not agreeing with what I'm saying." - you can hardly complain, when you have yet to agree to anything being done on what you still consider to be your page. Stuart DD _{contributions} 11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But still the comics and video games have their part in the Doctor Who trilogy that you will not add for completely not needed reasons. --VitasV 06:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I quote the above "It's been explained to you pretty clearly WHY we aren't including them (In regards to the comics, I'm still waiting for the other users to explain there views in the above section)"

We've made our views clear - if you are not going to be willing to listen to other users opinions at all, then you're going to find it hard to get yourself taken seriously. Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The comics do not belong. The video games absolutely positively resoundingly do not belong because they have no definite story. They can be played with different characters, different outcomes, etc. Wryspy 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of Fatal Death in Unofficial canon?

Should we put Curse of Fatal Death in the unofficial canon section? I can't see why not. StuartDD ( t • c ) 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It was just a spoof, you get Doctor Who spoofs all the time, nobody saw it as official or unofficial cannon.--Wiggstar69 11:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it in unofficial cannon because if you haven't read The Gallifrey Chronicles you would know that Rowan Atkinson's Doctor is an alternate Ninth Doctor like the Shalka Doctor. It stays. Just because the online reference guides don't include them doesn't mean you should follow them. They were created by people who follow where they go but also aknoledge their own idea of where they go. --VitasV 08:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is listed on the serials page - why not here? Unofficial is the perfect place, since it is unofficial. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Added it ages ago. Probably should have mentioned it here... --OZ OO (What?) 10:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

A lot of the information on this page is not referenced, for some of the stories, books, etc, there is no reason why one story has been put in front of another. For me this is a great weakness for the page and makes it unreliable, this was the main reason it was being considered for deletion a few months back and why it is not too unlikely to get to that point again. It is possible to find inside story references for some of the stories but I feel making this a 'wikipedia' standered page is going to be very hard. --Wiggstar69 11:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See New reference style section above. Basically, I decided to contract the references in the style of the Chronology of the Doctor Who universe page, as part of the suggested clean up of the page. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frostfire

Please stop placing Frostfire between The Time Meddler and The Empire of Glass. I'm not sure if you've listened to the audio but the story takes place between The Myth Makers and The Dalek's Master Plan. The story Vicki tells to Cinder is what happened during between The Time Meddler and The Empire of Glass, not what is happening there right now. If you don't agree with what I say then I suggest you listen to it again or buy it if you don't have it. --VitasV 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't but I'm going by ref guide which places it there. see also It's entry for Frostfire. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, just read that again - do you mean that the placement between The Time Meddler and The Empire of Glass is a flashback? Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is a flashback- I've made what I think should happen here. --OZ OO (What?) 12:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - it's the same format that we have for Fear of the Daleks. Stuart DD _{contributions} 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Remember that not all the reference guides are completely correct as the mainly always go by instinct. --VitasV 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they put it there meaning the flashback. So they are technically correct. Stuart DD _{contributions} 08:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we get some kind of reference for the placement between The Myth Makers and The Dalek's Master Plan? Even something like "Viki recounts a previous adventure after the events of The Myth Makers" would do. Stuart DD _{contributions} 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put "Vicki recounts an adventure after she leaves the Doctor. She left in The Myth Makers" just now. If that is not correct, please correct it. Stuart DD _{contributions} 09:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Come to think of it, shouldn't the Vicki-only scenes be put in "No Doctor"? There no doctor present for those scenes...--OZ OO (What?) 09:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite true actually - same for Zoe and Fear of the Daleks. Stuart DD _{contributions} 12:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Doctor is in the flashback so it shouldn't be under "No Doctor". --VitasV 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we're not talking about the flashback, we mean the placement where the story is told from. Stuart DD _{contributions} 14:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forever Autumn, Sick Building and Wetworld

Do we have a source for the placements of these before Blink. I tried ref guide, but it still hasn't updated the placements. Even something from the novel itself (e.g it is established to follow FOB) would do. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack of the Graske and Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane?

Just watched the second part of Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane?, and Attack of the Graske was (indirectly) reffered to, so I've added it after The Christmas Invasion (in the absance of any other position for it). Stuart DD _{contributions} 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally we can agree on something. I remember you saying not to add the games but since you've changed your mind on the subject. --VitasV 09:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever Happened to Sarah Jane? shows that Attack of the Graske goes, but it doesn't show that the other games go as well. This is not a change of mind - take a quick look at the page, and you'll see I treated AOTG separate to others, starting two separate discussions on whether to just have this - 1, 2. There is nothing to suggest that the other games go, and you'll notice that it was a completely different user who reverted you change this time - for exactly the same reasons that you have been given several times. Stuart DD _{contributions} 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Before now this game was not accepted as continuaty on the serials page, now it is we can add it is, other games are not continuaty.Wiggstar69 13:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't inserting it "in the abs(e)nce of any other position" count as OR? Wryspy (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also placed there by ref guide, so we can add that as a reference. Stuart DD _{contributions} 09:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting (again)

Coming back to the splitting issue, I really think that the sections need to be split up for ease of reading. I know there is really no easy division, but I tried one in my Sandbox, so see what you think. Feel free to make changes to the divisions if you want. Stuart DD _{contributions} 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If no-one has any objections, I'll make the chances tomorrow. Stuart DD _{contributions} 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.