Template talk:Doctor Who
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Template | This page is a Template and does not require a rating. |
Would it be okay to change this so that the subcategories are a bit more obvious? Also, what about the DVD releases article? :) --JohnDBuell 05:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC) How about:
Someone would have to work on spacing.... :)
Contents |
[edit] Portal
The current template's link at the top says Doctor Who, which links to the portal. However, if I was just an anonymous viewer using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I would click on the link (expecting to go to Doctor Who) and end up at the portal. From the portal, there is no obvious link to Doctor Who. For this reason I would like to change the link at the top to go to Doctor Who, but include a link to the Portal as well. How should this be done? Thelb4 08:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Serials, etc
I think the Serials list is one of the most important, and deserves a point of priority up with spinoffs, audios and DVDs.
For that matter, I'm dissatisfied with the categorization in general; it's nice to know which articles are Featured, but do they deserve their own section? If we list Dalek, why not Cyberman or other major alien articles?
I'll stew on this a bit and see if I can come up with something better. Suggestions welcome! Radagast 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made a minor adjustment to the spacing of the "related series" section. I'm slightly sad to lose the featured articles, but I suppose it's really tooting our own horn a bit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Given that K9 & Company never made it to a series (yet!), oughtn't it to be "Related productions"? Angmering 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- "BBC spin-offs" could be read to include things like Slipback and Death Comes to Time (both produced under BBC auspices). How about "Related television programmes"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Just "related programmes" should be enough, I think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- There are also self reference issues lumping-in portal in with main space articles. Tim | meep in my general direction 08:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You could move "Monsters and Aliens" and "Celebrity Appearances" to a line together. They certainly share some common themes. (ahem.) --Aderack 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spoofs
As not all of the spoofs are programmes (although I realise that's all but one), and as it is a big list, could we put Doctor Who spoofs in the lists section rather than related programmes? It would fill out the celeb appearances line too and would leave the bottom section for italicised titles. Any views one way or the other? —Whouk (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Episodes by date
What exactly are the criteria for inclusion in this template? List of Doctor Who episodes by date seems kind of sketchy to me - it's a little fancrufty, and it's got an ongoing merge discussion. --Brian Olsen 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] K-9 Adventures and Sarah Jane Investigates
This is more a heads-up than a call for discussion, although if anyone wants to discuss it they can: the consensus at the Doctor Who WikiProject is that it's premature to put these programmes in the template at this time. (I mention it here because four different editors have tried to put Sarah Jane Investigates in the template today.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since it's been confirmed in the latest Doctor Who Magazine, the consensus seemed to be to add Sarah Jane Investigates now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Torchwood De-Classified
I've added this to the Related Programmes section of the template. It was broadcast after the early morning repeats of Torchwood on BBC3. It's only a 10 minute programme and the listings show only 3 episodes. I would have thought there would be an episode of T D-C after every episode of Torchwood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphod Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 07:25, October 23, 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether this should be in the infobox or not: the question is whether it's going to be significant enough to merit an article of its own. Three ten-minute episodes make a fairly marginal case, IMO. I think I'll remove it for now, but if an article is created and maintained, it can be restored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Big Finish audios
Hey, just wondering: is there a particular reason the Big Finish Who range isn't linked off the panel? It's a pretty significant hunk of material! Arguably, it's about as significant as the books -- especially given its much broader exposure of late, with the BBC7 transmissions (and commissions!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.9.136 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November, 2006 (UTC).
I've inserted main characters if that's okay with everyone because it's fair to say that the new series has much more of a main cast than the old series, and those are the current main characters. UNIT and Cybermaen are debatable, but fiddle with the actual contents of "main characters" if you want. Give it a chance though, this is what is done with most other series templates.
[edit] What's this about lack of discussion?
I trust the point is clear enough now?
Apply the above discussion and reasoning to a list of every single actor who has appeared in the show over its forty-five-year history. No way is that notable. The list of source music is pretty dodgy as well. I'd be interested to see the broader reaction to that.
A list of every UNIT member has its argument, though certainly not on a root directory for the show. A link off a link, at best. Case in point: Big Finish Doctor Who chronology, a list of roughly similar encyclopedic merit (to which I have contributed from time to time). Notice whence it's linked? Not from the top-level series template, because it's not that important. The article is linked in whatever context it is a distinctly appropriate or notable discussion to raise: at the bottom of the List of Doctor Who serials; at the bottom of the List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. If the UNIT list belongs anywhere, it's linked off the main UNIT page. Maybe off a few key character pages.
One thing you do not want in a root directory is clutter. Put it in, it will get weeded out. This template is for important, basic concepts, key to the understanding of the show. The nice thing about hypertext: it is branching. Use that feature as it's made to be used. --Aderack 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken on discussion prior to the removal of the TARDIS travellers list, I apologise, I clearly missed this - normally an automated message is sent to me before an article I have edited significantly is deleted. I would also like to point out I understand the reasons why the page was considered 'fancruft' and was deleted.
- However, regarding the template - Aderack repeatedly removes links to lists that s/he deems unworthy of their place there. Without nominating them for deletion and allowing a discussion to take place as to their validity, how can s/he establish the consensus on whether or not the links should remain in the template? Wolf of Fenric 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Separate section for "Expanded Universe"
Should we have a separate section for pages to do with novels/ audios etc. Here is an idea of what it would look like
| Doctor Who main pages |
|---|
| The Doctor | Companions | Daleks | Cybermen | The Master | TARDIS | Regeneration | UNIT |
| Whoniverse | Chronology | History | Story arcs |
| Missing episodes | Theme music | Fandom | In America | In Australia |
| Doctor Who lists |
| Serials (incomplete, unmade) | DVD releases | Spoofs |
| Supporting characters | Historical characters |
| Monsters and aliens | Villains | Henchmen | Robots | Planets | Items | Vehicles | Music |
| Cast | Producers | Script editors | Writers | Celebrity appearances |
| Doctor Who: Expanded Universe |
| Spin-offs | Virgin New Adventures | Novelisations and original books | BBC audios | |
| Big Finish audios | Spin-off companions | Big Finish Doctor Who chronology | Doctor Who story chronology |
| Doctor Who spin-offs |
| K-9 and Company | Torchwood | The Sarah Jane Adventures | K-9 |
| Related shows |
| Doctor Who Confidential | Totally Doctor Who | Torchwood Declassified |
| Related publications |
| Doctor Who Magazine | Doctor Who Adventures | Doctor Who - Battles in Time |
| Portal |
StuartDD 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- My only problem with this is the term Expanded Universe - it's a bit Star Wars-ish. I can't say I've heard it used to refer to Doctor Who spin-off media. Is there a substitute term that could be used? Wolf of Fenric 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Who around the world
Are Doctor Who in America and Doctor Who in Australia really main pages? What about in Britain? Canada? Spain? The Dominican Republic? It seems odd to single out just two countries in the main pages section. Wolf of Fenric 02:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we really need these on the template. They are "main pages", but are not really relevant. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Current companion/s
I think the current companion/s should be listed on the template next to the Doctor. It occurs to me that although the article Companion is listed directly next to the Doctor already and links can be found off that, casual viewers and readers may want to quickly find information on the lead characters - the Doctor and the companion with him on screen at the moment. It would also be very easy to update when companions join and leave. Although, thinking about it, the Doctor is currently linking to the article about all of them Doctor (Doctor Who) not Tenth Doctor and it may be problematic and spoilerific for viewers outside the UK who are behind in episodes. So actually, I disagree with myself and think it should be left as it is and I need not have typed this. Wolf of Fenric 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
