Talk:Doctor Who story chronology/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Contributions 2 Missing 3 Other adventures 4 The Movie 5 K9 pilot 6 VistasV 7 An idle thought on formatting 8 Doctor Who story chronology 9 Keys 10 Missing stories 11 Keys 12 Main monsters 13 Paralel Earth Cybermen 14 Missing stories 15 Monster listings 16 Video Games to "other adventures"? 17 Monsters and Villains 17.1 Update 18 Change "format" table 19 Short Trips 20 The Who MoS on names 21 Requested move 21.1 Survey 21.2 Discussion 22 Requested Move 22.1 Survey 22.2 Discussion

Contributions

If you would like to contribute a title name on this page I would be happy for you to add it but if the title name is already up contact me first. VitasV 28/7/2007

Missing

We are missing the stories:

Excelis Rising - Sixth Doctor

Death Comes to Time - Seventh Doctor

Destiny of the Doctors - Seventh Doctor

Dalek Attack - Seventh Doctor

Doctor Who and the Mines of Terror - Sixth Doctor

So please can we put them in. VitasV 10/8/2007

Excelis Rising and Death Comes to time are now in the list. StuartDD 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And now someone add in the other 3. VitasV 11/8/07

Other adventures

Is the "other adventures" section even needed? Alternate Doctors are covered elsewhere. Dr.Who 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My idea for this was to include the "Interference" books with the Third Doctor, as they are listed as 'negated' on Outpost Gallifrey.. As "Seven Keys to Doomsday" was also there as 'negated' I put both in this section. I believe the Interference line has now been erazed. StuartDD 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now put Interference back in, since no reason for it's removal was given and (As I stated above) it was for this that I started that section. As Seven Keys to Doomsday was changed from 'negated' because of no source I have now added a source. StuartDD 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Movie

Look, this page is on the fictional side of Doctor Who. The page on list of serials is a non-fictional side of Doctor Who. So please can we just call it The Movie on this page. I mean, the official Doctor Who website calls it The Movie. Outpost Gallifrey calls it The Movie. Even the Doctor Who book Monsters and Villains calls it the movie. So please at least on this page can we call it the movie though we may still call it Doctor Who on the list of serials page. It's not that hard. VitasV 14/8/07

Do you know what The Movie calls itself? Oh, that's right: Doctor Who. And the reason for that is that its proper title is Doctor Who, as clearly stated in its titles. This particular article does not exist in universe parallel to the rest of Wikipedia on that score. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(from my talkpage) "Please don't open this up again. That last edit was not helpful. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"

-It was an attempt to build a compramise between "Doctor Who" and "The movie". I thought it would be a good way to include both. Since it has been reverted, I will not change it back. I appologise for being of "no help". StuartDD 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Look I will not come up with this discussion if we just call it The Movie on this page, just on this page. VitasV 17/8/2007

That's not going to happen because that's not its name. Dr.Who 23:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's what the the official Doctor Who website calls it, and Outpost Gallifrey and also the cover of the DVD. Can you explain that. VitasV 17/8/2007

Go to the original source. The movie's title is Doctor Who. The copyright says Doctor Who. For the cover of the DVD to call it "The Movie" is no more an official title than when we see the Special Platinum Edition of some other movie. Calling it "The Movie" is a nickname or a descriptive term, not a title. Dr.Who 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Outpost Gallifrey only has "Doctor Who" (scroll to eighth doctor section), as does Doctor Who reference Guide. While fans, and some pages use "The Movie", it is not the official title and is only used on fan-sites. Wikipedoia is not a fan site it is an encyclopedia. Please stop "correcting" the title, because it is not correcting, it is giving wrong information. StuartDD 19:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

K9 pilot

I've removed this for the time being. The intro states that it is the perspective of the doctor, and he doesn't appear. Also page title is "Doctor Who story chronology" - and this is not a Doctor Who story. If you want to put it in, then add Torchwood and Sarah Jane Adventures as well. StuartDD 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who's perspective does matter. Even though he didn't appear in K-9 and Company, he initiated story by sending the robot dog to Sarah. Wryspy 08:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

VistasV

VistasV, please explain why you are reverting something before you revert it. I explained clearly that villains with one and two stories cannot be considered to be "main" villains - some of the ones you were adding didn't even have pages aobut them (Sandminder Robots).

Also, PLEASE STOP changing Doctor Who to the Movie. You asked for it to be left, has it explained to you WHY it should be Doctor Who, had your edits repetedly reveted, been blocked from editing, had it proven from external sources that it is Doctor Who - and yet you still insist on naming it "the movie". THE OFFICIAL TITLE IS DOCTOR WHO!!!!!!! - see the title contraversy page. StuartDD 14:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

An idle thought on formatting

Possibly I've been reading Wikipedia articles for too long now, but glancing through the page suggests to me that there are articles called The Dark Path (The Master) and The Abominable Snowmen (Yeti). Does this strike anyone else as potentially confusing, or have I just gone off the deep end? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 13:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Yeah, you have just gone off the deep end. VitasV 27/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:07, August 27, 2007 (UTC).

It's confusing - I don't understand why the major villains are listed at all, but if they're going to be there, they should be in their own column, properly labeled. --Brian Olsen 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Before anybody bothers creating such a column (which would be a sensible way to present such information), somebody needs to justify listing the monsters/villains at all. How does that information address the whole point of the article, which is to show the order in which the stories occur in the Doctor's personal timeline? Furthermore, the information is wholly redundant to other articles. Before removing it, though, we should give someone a chance to try to justify its inclusion. Wryspy 08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you've been reading Wikipedia articles too long -- specifically, their titles. Regardless of that, articles are full of parenthetical information. Wryspy 08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a possibility. It's mainly the ones where the opponents are linked. I'm not personally convinced we need the monsters/villains mentioned in this way; there are more appropriate ways to enable people to navigate Dalek stories, say, which are already in existence. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who story chronology

Alright< I'll stop changing Doctor Who to the Movie though I'll put in brackets the movie next to it. Also there are some other monsters and villains I would like to add. VitasV 20/8/07

Removed - serves no purpose, doesn't benefit the list at all. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keys

Who ever got rid of the keys, I'm reverting them back cause now with the names next to stories is now a bit of an eyesore. VitasV 20/8/07

Also reverted - the idea of using an overly complicated, hard-to-read "key" system when there is a simpler, easier, more intuitive method makes no sense. VitasV, please listen to the other editors here. You will not achieve anything by ignoring their concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

VistasV, you seem to be determined to get your own way. Gelth only have one story - How can that make them a main monster. Some of the others only have two - same again. Don't add monsters that are clearly not "main monsters" to a list of main monsters. StuartDD 16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed Macra AGAIN - stop adding them. They are simply not a main monster. StuartDD 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing stories

There are some Sixth Doctor stories that are missing. Here are a few:

Crisis in Space

Search for the Doctor

Invasion of the Ormazoids

Can someone please add them in. VitasV 20/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:51, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Keys

I would much appreciate that no one get rid of the keys as that took me a while to make. VitasV 20/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:20, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid that the amount of effort you put into something isn't a determining factor in whether or not it should be kept. The problem with the list of monsters is that it has nothing to do with what this article is supposed to be about. If you want it to be kept, you should address that point. --Brian Olsen 03:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The key does not in any way enhance readers' understanding of material. Unless a reader memorizes the entire key at first glance, the two-letter codes won't mean anything without going back and forth between key and entries. If you think the monsters/villains need to be identified (which you need to justify relative to the article's purpose, but that's a separate issue), then just put their names and not the two-letter codes. Straightforward information is best. The amount of effort you put into creating the key is irrelevant to the question of what will best serve Wikipedia's goals and its readers' education. Your amount of effort did not keep either of the other articles you created from getting deleted through AfD. Effort isn't the point. Quality is. You created an interesting article here. But it is a wiki, and therefore it's not yours now. It's everyone's. Wryspy 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Main monsters

I was thinking of putting a sentance in the introduction explaining the monsters, but wasn't sure what to put. I don't want to put "The main monsters and villains are listed beside the stories in which they appear." as it is not all the stories where they appear, so what should it be? StuartDD 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Before we really invest time doing much of anything else with those monsters/villains, somebody needs to post an explanation here to justify their listing in this story chronology article. We don't want to waste time editing monsters/villains if they're just going to get deleted for lack of relevance. Wryspy 04:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Paralel Earth Cybermen

I don't want anyone to change the names from Paralel Earth Cybermen to Cybermen as need I remind you that Paralel Earth Cybermen are very different to Cybermen. They use different methods, they come from a different planet which was their birth place and they come from a different dimension. VitasV 21/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

If anyone wants to find out the details of which Earth is being dealt with, they can visit the episode articles. Presently, we don't even have a good rationale for listing various monsters at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Digby Tantrum (talk • contribs) 08:47, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

There are several different designs of Cybermen in the old series. They change style from The Tenth Planet and Tomb of the Cybermen to a different style in The Invasion - the different types do not need to be mentioned in this article. StuartDD 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There are alternate versions of other characters, especially when we figure in non-televised media. It's not a practical distinction. Wryspy 13:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing stories

Can someone please add the 3 Sixth Doctor stories:

Crisis in Space
Search for the Doctor
Invasion of the Ormazoids

I would add them but I'm not sure where they go. I do know that Crisis in Space is with Peri and Search for the doctor and Invasion of the Ormazoids is when he's by himself so please add them in. VitasV 21/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:33, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I've added them to other adventures as they are Gamebooks, and of unclear canonicity. StuartDD 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Monster listings

VistasV please do not add any villains that are not "main". In the last edots you added Sycorax, Abzorbalof and Graske - all only appear in one story. HOW can one story make it a main monster. Also, the Autons appearance in Love and Monsters was a flashback and does not need to be listed. StuartDD 13:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Video Games to "other adventures"?

Should the video games go under the "other adventures" section rather than in the main list? StuartDD 19:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No they shouldn't as they are part of the chronology. In one Seventh Doctor story there is mention of the events of Dalek Attack so they shouldn't be under other adventures. VitasV 24/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:00, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Monsters and Villains

I've got an idea. Lets make a rule. We'll only add a monster,alien or villain beside the story name if they've appeared in more than one story no matter if they are books and audios and also if they have appeared in the following books: Monsters and Villains, Aliens and Enemies and Creatures and Demons. That sounds fair. I'm going to add in Wirrn and Macra. VitasV 24/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

But why are we adding the monsters at all? I still haven't heard a good reasoning for it. This isn't a list of which monsters have appeared in which stories, it's a chronology of adventures from the Doctor's point of view. I'm really thinking we should remove all the monsters and villains from this list. --Brian Olsen 06:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there's been no valid rationale provided yet. If we don't see one in the next couple of days, I think I'll be making moves to remove them. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no point adding monsters that are not "main" to a list of main monsters. It is point of view what makes a main monster anyway. I started removing those with one or two stories because I hoped that we could agree that two stories doesn't make a main monster. Since some people can't seem to grasp this basic fact, then I vote to remove the list altogether. StuartDD 19:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said it was to do with anything about them being main. We will only add the monsters and villains in if they meet the following criteria:

• They've appeared more than once through the Doctor Who series whether their second appearance was a book or audio.
• And only if they are also listed in the following books:
  • Monsters and Villains
  • Aliens and Enemies
  • Creatures and Demons

Sounds fair and reasonable. VitasV 25/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

"Who said it was to do with anything about them being main." - err... YOU did - with the Table that you put in - with the heading "MAIN monsters and Villains" StuartDD 12:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Update

Monsters and Villains have now been removed, along with the video games that had somehow crept in. So, for example, we now no longer explain that there are Daleks in The Daleks, Ice Warriors in The Ice Warriors, a Sontaran in The Sontaran Experiment or a Celestial Toymaker in The Celestial Toymaker. I hope not to see their re-inclusion. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who wanted to include the villains and monsters, we gave them time to provide justification for inclusion. We never received that justification. You made a wholly appropriate edit by removing them. Wryspy 08:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Change "format" table

I had an idea, that instead of the "format" list, we put what type of publication it is - e.g. Big Finish Audio, BBC Audio, Telos Novel etc - rather than simply "Book" or "Audio". Alternatively, we could add this as a separate section to the list. StuartDD 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No we shouldn't cause that is not what this page is about. What you just said is not recommended for this page. VitasV 25/8/07 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:49, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

This page isn't about the monsters and villains in the story either. I think we should put them in. --OZOO (What?) 07:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - it would enhance this information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. It also revealed some missing stories, which I have also added. StuartDD 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Short Trips

I'm thinking of adding the Short Trips stories- who else thinks we should do that?. Also, someone else would have to add the Decalogs and Big Finish Short Trips- I only have the BBC ones. --OZOO (What?) 07:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources indicating exactly when those occur relative to other Doctor Who stories? Because if you don't, then inserting them would be OR and/or invoke POV. Wryspy 08:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the links on the page to reference guide, it suggests placements for them. I'll try and do the Decalogs later. StuartDD 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Who MoS on names

We seem to be lacking italics and quotation marks for story titles. Do we have a reason for doing so, or ought we to be getting on with fixing this? (For the benefit of newer editors, the project style has been italics for serial titles and double quotes for episode titles.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --OZOO (What?) 09:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 18:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.