Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 21 May 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Doctor Who Project‑class

This page 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• ]

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. An index of these discussions can be found here.

If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Template:Whotalkarchivenav

Assessment scales?

Has the idea of incorporating the assessment scale system which appears on other wikiprojects? I quiet like it myself, I was wonderin if others do or if anyone has any reservations. --GracieLizzie 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've considered this before, but kept putting off bringing it up because it always seems that we've got enough on the "to do" list as it is. It could be a useful addition. Of course, we should spend some time figuring out the criteria for assessment before we start slapping tags on talk pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely, one of the things that puts me off assigning a quality to pages that have them is the fact I have no idea what the "quality criteria", or whatever, are. --GracieLizzie 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking it upon myself to modify the doctorwhoproject template accordingly. The process of assessment using the functionality of the Mathbot can aid a project in many ways - particularly in collating and categorising. It will take a couple of weeks in total probably, to smooth out the finer details, but the creation and modification of the template shouldn't impede the current progress of the project in any way. --Mal 05:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A further thought: spin-offs such as Torchwood could use the same template treated in a similar way as the Beatles template treats major individuals related to the group - Epstein, McCartney, Martin, Lennon, Starr and Harrison. --Mal 05:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the introduction of assessment scales, once the work is done, will be a great way of monitoring and accessing the success of the Project. One can then see the improvement from month to month and then act accordingly. LuciferMorgan 12:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Top articles would be Doctor Who, Dalek, Cyberman, Doctor (Doctor Who), Master (Doctor Who), Time Lord, and possibly List of Doctor Who serials. But I think we should wait a bit, though. Will 21:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Serial/Episode Navigation Template

I just finished creating/debugging a Serial/Episode navigation template. I think it's needed because scrolling back to the top of the page to go click on the link to the next episode is a little too tiresome. This template is primarily for the bottom of a serial/episode page.

{{Template:Doctorwhoserialnav}} Template:Doctorwhoserialnav

Check out An Unearthly Child for a preview. DonQuixote 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm opposed. Some serials already have multiple navboxes, and they're starting to look cluttered. Since this info is already present in the infobox, I don't think it's necessary. --Brian Olsen 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus at the TV project is these are redundant to infoboxes (I agree with this assertion), a few of these have now been deleted. Matthew 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean it to be about information but about navigation. I used Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton as a precedent. Anyway, discuss. DonQuixote 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree that it's redundant with the infobox, since the infobox already contains fields for the preceding and succeeding serials. It's pretty, but I don't think it helps the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that I am not a part of the project so I apologize for sticking my nose in, but, as I have been working to bring a more uniform look to the pages I thought that I would add a couple of comments. First, I would agree that they are redundant and add to the clutter at the bottom of some articles. The Five Doctors for instance already has five navboxes and this one might get lost among them. Second, if scrolling to the top is tiresome simply hit the 'Home' button on your keyboard and it takes you back to the top where clicking on the link to the next story is a breeze (believe me I have been doing that a lot over the last week). My work on the serials pages has brought up one other subject that I wanted to bring to the attention of you good members of the Wikiproject Doctor Who so (see below). MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Section titles for the various formats in which the serials have been released

As I have been going through the stories pages and have been trying to give them a more uniform look (mostly moving the 'In Print' section so that it is above the releases section - I had seen a few other editors doing this and it seemed to make sense as, with only a few exceptions, the books came out before the VHS etc releases) I found that there are several different names for the section headers covering the various formats in which the stories have been released.

As I thought about whether there was one title (ie Continuity or Production) that could be used on every article a few thoughts came up:

1. My first thought was to name them all 'Broadcast and release' but the more I thought about this the more it seemed like the original air dates should be a part of this section, but that information is already in the opening paragraph on each page and in the infobox so there was no need to add it here unless the wikiproject wanted to move it here. None of this is actually an argument against using this title.
2. Still start the section with the word 'Broadcast' (as many pages have interesting info about the original and repeat airings) and then use the name of the media that the story has been released on in the header - ie 'VHS', 'CD', 'DVD' and (occasionally) 'Cassette'. This also allows for adding DVD to the title as the stories come out in that format.
3. Leave them as they are as it might not be that big of a deal.

While I would lean toward suggestion number two, I'm sure that you members of the project will have other ideas. In any event, this is all just food for thought. Should the project come to a decision on this matter I would be happy to offer my services as a wikignome to go through and change the titles to any form that is decided upon

One last word of thanks to all of you members of this Doctor Who project. I think that you do remarkable work and keep up the good job. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The main project page gives the order and titles for sections that we had agreed on - there weren't a whole lot of people involved in the discussion, though, so it's certainly fine to open it up again. It looks like it does say to put the "In print" section above the releases section, so you're quite right to do so! The title of the "Broadcast and releases" section has always bothered me - it looks like we did settle on your second option. The CD releases never occcured to me, but I think you're right that they should be included in that section. I've no problem with changing the title of that section - "Broadcast and (blank) releases" - depending on what's appropriate. It still feels consistent, even if technically it's not. And lastly - why not add your name to the list of Project members? You're already doing the work! --Brian Olsen 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite episode subpage proposal

Most of the Doctor Who articles are superb but lack in-line citations, with mentions of episodes regarding various facts making for clumsy prose. I suggest a sub-page where editors can simply cut and paste {{cite episode}} templates for each episode to use for citations to make life easier. So basically a version of the List of Doctor Who serials article with templates for editors to copy and paste from.

• Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode citations (with WP:WHO NOTES as redirect).

Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea — I had planned to create a guide to references, but never got the proverbial "round tuit". I don't think we need to vote on this — if you want to get started on this, just do it! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I started it, but someone who's better at table formats then me should add the {{]}} format. I'll try. Alientraveller 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a look - it's looking pretty good. I reformatted the airdates so that they'd show up properly - they need to be in YYYY-MM-DD format, without brackets. And I added the "began" and "ended" fields for the serials. What about adding a row beneath each serial, displaying how the citation will look on the page?

I've got a general question to toss out about this, though - the problem with the cite episode template for Who serials is that the name of the serial ends up in quotation marks, not italics. (You can force it to be in italics, but the quotation marks will still be there.) That's fine for most TV shows, but it only works for us if we're citing a particular episode - like "The Dead Planet" or (I suppose) "The Ribos Operation, Part One". I'm not too familiar with templates, but looking at the syntax for cite episode, I don't think it would be too difficult to copy the whole thing and remove the quotes, to make, say, "Cite serial". Would there be any problems with doing it, and how would I go about it? Is it as easy as making a new article page? --Brian Olsen 17:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit more info on my own question...I found the template sandbox, and played around with cite episode. I discovered that it would be very easy to make a new template that would italicize the serial names, rather than putting them in quotes. Is this worthwhile? Do we want a "cite serial" template? And if so, are there any other changes from the "cite episode" template that would be useful? --Brian Olsen 19:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There might be merit in a "cite serial" template, but before it's created we should probably be sure that we've settled the thorny problem of italicizing vs. quotation marks. I'm still of the view that we should continue to italicize serial names like The Dalek Invasion of Earth, but that we should switch to quotation marks for episodes, both classic and new (so "Day of Reckoning" and "Daleks in Manhattan"). This would be a change only for new series episodes (and Torchwood, which ended up following the Who lead instead of the general Misplaced Pages guidelines). In fact, I've been delaying my response to this question because I didn't really want to reopen that can of worms, but since we've got another FAR on our hands we should probably try to settle it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that episode titles should be consistent with the MoS. The JPS 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote to support

1. Alientraveller 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Thelb 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
3. --GracieLizzie 22:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Definitely! It would be phenomenally handy!
4. Support, with the caveat that voting is evil and unnecessary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Sounds brilliant to me. Writing up those citations is always a bitch.~Zythe 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote to oppose

Discussion

TARDIS trademark

Our article on TARDIS says that the patent office has granted the TARDIS trademark to the BBC . This link is unavailable at time of writing. They rejected a challenge from the Metropolitan Police, which has never used the word TARDIS but objected to the police box image. This suggests to me that the image itself is a trademark of the BBC.

On this basis. I suggest that it might be a good idea to stop using that trademark image on Misplaced Pages to signify the Doctor Who WikiProject, as in the use of Image:TARDIS1.png (which although a free image, employs the BBC trademark image) in Template:Doctorwhoproject. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (please see above) and the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image. Please read all the previous discussions above to stop us wasting more time on this issue. Thank you. Smomo 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please show me where on this page the use of BBC trademarks is discussed? --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's here. Smomo 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of the trademark. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony's right that we didn't address the trademark issue specifically. I thought I'd asked about it at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., but it looks like I didn't. What exactly is the policy on free images of trademarked designs? I don't want to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Template:StarTrek-stub uses an image of the (presumably) trademarked Enterprise design (well, one of them), and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stargate uses Image:Stargate-color.png, which is free enough to be on Commons, but is also probably a trademarked design. I can find a lot of information about copyrights on Misplaced Pages, but little on trademarks and how they affect an image's suitability for use. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On the sixth page inside cover of every recent doctor who novel produced by BBC Books it says "'Doctor Who', 'TARDIS' and the Doctor Who logo are trademarks of the British Broadcasting Corporation and are used under licence." I don't know if that helps, but it says the same inside all the books if you want a ref.--Wiggstar69 11:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's referring to the TARDIS as a fictional bigger-on-the-inside time and space travelling machine, rather than specifically the police box exterior. Angmering 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Judoon

Someone keep an eye on this. There's this incredibly OR "Sontaran controversy" section where the poster has said they'll revert whomever deletes it unless they discus their reasons "in depth" in talk. Personally, I don't see any reason to discuss what is a clear violation of OR with no citations in depth, but there you go. Article could also use cleaning up.

Real life has been keeping me busy, so I've not been keeping as close an eye on things as I used to (and there was great rejoicing), and my threshold for Wikidrama has lowered considerably. Anyway, that article needs work, if not simply merger into List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens, since the Judoon have only appeared in one story so far. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger sounds like the best option to me. Percy Snoodle 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I hope people agree with me in that this page is getting too long, is it time for an Archive?--Wiggstar69 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to archive the page can do so — I've done it in the past, but I've been crazy busy in real life lately and haven't had as much time for Misplaced Pages as I'd like. The archive procedure I'd been using for this page is a bit archaic (it was the recommendation at WP:ARCHIVE at one point, but hasn't been for ages). If you don't want to bother with the index, I can do that when things are less insane for me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes FAR

Doctor Who missing episodes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys - weren't me who nominated. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What a silly nomination. Smomo 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that view, but let's leave it at that. LuciferMorgan 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a go at adding some inlines over the weekend. Angmering 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool, as otherwise it'll likely be defeatured in a month considering it's lack of cites. LuciferMorgan 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy

Thought I should bring Stargate vs. Doctor Who Guinness controversy to people's attention. Percy Snoodle 11:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats interesting, I wanted it to be Doctor who but it looks like its neither of the shows, I wonder why they cant come to a decision.--Wiggstar69 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated this rather pathetic article for deletion. Angmering 11:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Spurious additions

Hi. You folks might like to keep an eye on the contribs of MrFijiax (talk · contribs), who's recently been inserting a swathe of apparently spurious additions into various Doctor Who-related articles and lists.--cjllw | TALK 07:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who henchmen

List of Doctor Who henchmen — what do we think? A list too far? Is there a need for these minor characters to have a list of their own? Even if the page has merit, does it deserve a place in Template:Doctor Who? All opinions welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who began in November, 1963 (famously, the evening after the assassination of President Kennedy). There was a long hiatus between the last Sylvester McCoy episode and the recent revival, but even so there's about twenty five years worth of Doctor Who stories. That's a hell of a lot of henching! On the other hand this article is a good way of cataloguing all the minor (and some not so minor) British character actors of the past forty-odd years. --Tony Sidaway 09:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, these people may not be of great importance, but its important having pages like this to keep all the other pages tidy, otherwise the people in the list would be popping up as parts of not so related articals.--Wiggstar69 09:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little random to me - why henchmen? Why not a list of supporting good guys? Or child actors? Or significant animal appearances? With a show that's been around as long as Doctor Who, you could make a list of just about anything and populate it pretty thoroughly. Any of the henchmen who are significant should be mentioned on the villains page, and the rest don't need to be listed outside of their episode article. --Brian Olsen 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other Doctor Who related lists and catagoreis have recently been deleted, like the ones you said. I think child actors was one, but got deleted. Maybe this will go the same way, eventually? Smomo 17:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think an emphasis should shift from creating articles to improving currently existing ones. Just an observation that's all. LuciferMorgan 06:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should leave it as it is, don't continue to make these sorts of pages or delete them either, just work from here and improve what we've got--Wiggstar69 21:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's way too random. It should ... go. Minor characters, maybe, because then we could include the recurring good guys who don't quite make monsters and aliens. Either way, henchmen should go. It's just pointless. Because they're usually VERY minor.~Zythe 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Henchmen are too minor. Percy Snoodle 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

People, you say delete this article because it's too random, good guys are included mainly as characters with their own page. It might be an unusual list but still, let's work with it and make it better. One day it could even be star-class. I realise it seems like an odd article to have but we do too much deleting these days and not enough good old fashioned writing. We should spend less time categorising, merging, deleting, speedy deleting and focus on what's important - good quality articles and getting ourself a damn good status on Misplaced Pages. So we should edit and alter and extend this list - and create many more like it. We also have to put ourself in the shoes of a complete stranger, looking up Dr. Who and stumbling across this article. They're not gonna really care if it seems like a stupid list, or if it doesn't fit in or if it's a category not needed, their only concern will be to find out what they want. Who knows, many people could be interested in henchmen in Dr. Who as reference or other reasons. And in the end it's about what anyone wants such as anyone visiting Misplaced Pages, not about what we want and how we want things categorised and merged. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Misplaced Pages should never be a reference or source ;) ~Zythe 16:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been listed for deletion, and relisted to get a more thorough consensus. Percy Snoodle 10:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiwho

Wikiwho is an idea of mine to start a Doctor Who Wiki. Here in England we're only the 3rd revived series (aka 29th season) and we deserve a Wiki. Here we could post information that gets snipped and cut on Misplaced Pages for various reasons. The idea is that anything Doctor Who would have it's page on there. From Margaret Blaine to Quarks and Haemovores and so on, all could have their own article since the site would be all Dr. Who. Please leave comments at , but please don't be negative or be rude about it. Thank you. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Wouldn't this duplicate Wikia TARDIS? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God. I didn't know we had one. I even spent a whole day searching "Doctor Who Wiki". My bad everyone... lol. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Two questions about The Five Doctors page

I have a couple of questions regarding The Five Doctors page for the project.

First, an anonymous editor keeps inserting the fact that the first VHS release had two minutes edited out from its original airing on the BBC. I have tried to find what these were on the net (Outpost Gallifrey is usually on top of thiis kind of thing) and have come up empty. The website that they provided as backup is simply a listing from eBay. Let me take a step back and point out that as a Yank the broadcast that we got to see on November 23rd, 1983 was missing two scenes (the scenes of the Master seeing the burnt husk of one of the Time Lord's that had proceeded him into the zone was one but the mists of time have blocked my remembering what the other one was). The 1985 VHS release restored these scenes. I don't remember whether the second VHS release ever occurred over here, but, I never saw it. I have some concern over using a listing on eBay as a source as the person selling the product may have inserted the phrase "edit two minutes" in error or through a misunderstanding of the various releases. Of course, my knowledge of the releases is also incomplete and this info may be correct. Thus, my question is this - do any members of the DW project have knowledge of, or access to, more complete info then is currently on the page? If so should we add what the 2 missing minutes are to the note about the VHS release?

My second question is about the infobox for the same story. It currently includes all of the normal info for the show plus the writers and directors of the clips used from The Dalek Invasion of Earth and Shada. Now to my eye this makes it look cluttered. I am not saying that this info shouldn't be included - I just think that it should go in the "Production notes" section. I would just make two points. First, all of the other stories info boxes contain info as credited on screen. Second, you have to be careful with this kind of thing as it could be argued that we should also include all of the writers and directors of the flashback segments of Logopolis, Earthshock and Mawdryn Undead. I am definitely not advocating for that, but someone far more obsessive/compulsive than I am might. Now, I know that this is just an aesthetic thing to my eye and if the majority of you are happy with it I will be okay with it too, I am just mentioning it as food for thought. Happy editing to you all and, of course, I am very jealous of you UK Doctor Who fans because it is going to be months before I get to enjoy the new episodes that you are viewing right now! MarnetteD | Talk 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Canon notices

I've noticed that there are quite repetitive statements of the type "the canonicity of the Doctor Who novels is not clear". Rather than have this interspersed throughout the "references to other Doctor Who stories" and "continuity" sections, I've been thinking that it would be better just to have a bit of boilerplate that can be placed at the head of each such section, leaving the text to flow more freely. I guess the wording should be something like:

Events and other elements referenced in Doctor Who novels, audio stories, films and other non-television sources may not be consistent with the television stories, which are normally assumed to be definitive.

I also suggest that we avoid the use of jargon words like "canon". --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consistency and canonical are different things. See Canon (fiction). Matthew 16:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I attempt to express that in English rather than jargon by saying that the television stories are normally assumed to be definitive, and the other sources may not be consistent with those stories. I think that just about captures the sense of it, at least for the purpose of explaining why some references that follow may not accord with the stories told in the television series. A good example of this would be the different stories of the origins of the daleks (and the various attempts to marry them together into a consistent whole). --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sizing of images

It's just been pointed out to me that this project's "style guide" says:

Screenshots should be 300px for the classic series and 350px for the wider screen new series.

This is bad practice, for the reasons outlined on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Images and discussed recently in and . The images in these articles do not meet the criteria for exception outlined in the former. Can anyone give me a good reason why the images need to be at a fixed size, overriding individual user's preferences? Andy Mabbett 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They do indeed meet the MoS as per the link you provided. Matthew 13:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? Andy Mabbett 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I told you (which I'll reiterate here to give you a "refresher"): "I've rolledback your edit, the Doctor Who WikiProject has a "style guide" with a consensus in agreement, furthermore the MoS states: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article" -- emphasis on /recommended/, not /disallowed/." Matthew 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I read what you wrote before I replied to it. Now, can you please tell mehow you think this usage meets the MoS' exception criteria, without resorting to sarcasm? Andy Mabbett 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I stated: "in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article" -- I had even bolded it for you, twice! Just because you prefer images at 180px does not make them a violation of the MoS. I find the image sizes the DW-SG states to use are reasonable for all resolutions. I'd also like to point out that while high-res images violate our fair use criteria so can low-res, if they're so small as to provide no critical commentary then they should not be within an article.. I find the image sizes to strengthen our fair use claim, they're not high-res.. nor are they low. Matthew 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're simply repeating yourself, without providing any justification for your claim, which appears to be based on personal preference for your own system, rather than any consideration for other users. I made no comment about my personal preference, nor about "fair use" criteria. I note that the section from which you have quoted begins "Some general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason not to", and ends "Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.". You have provided no such compelling reason. I intend to seek further opinions on this matter. Andy Mabbett 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You go do that! Matthew 14:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Giving third opinion. Hmm, I do think that having a reasonable policy for displayed image sizes is acceptable. It offers a greater consistency across a project. I've also been looking at various featured articles like Triumph of the Will, every one of them sizes the image as well. Perhaps I'm missing something in the discussion though? Mister.Manticore 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But giving that this is the practice on a lot of pages, and could be a problem, I'm not sure this is an issue that's specific enough to this project for a discussion here. Mister.Manticore 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that sizing pictures at 300 and 350 pixels can occupy a much too large proportion of the viewing area. We should avoid overriding user preferences unless we have a very, very good reason (we don't). --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I tried looking at the page with the default user preference I use...it didn't look anywhere as good. Besides, as I noted, this problem isn't one just for this wikiproject, but across a spectrum of pages. Therefore, I suggest developing consensus in a wider forum. This is clearly something for the Village Pump. Mister.Manticore 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"it didn't look anywhere as good" ...on your set-up. Andy Mabbett 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, duh, I thought that was obvious. Nonethless, the problem was that simply removing the pixel specification doesn't mean nobody is bothered, it means now I've got a picture that looks less good unless I somehow go edit my configureation. This I think is a problem for many users, especially casual ones. Of course, as a problem, it's been one that's hindered the internet for a while, so it's not exactly new either. Mister.Manticore 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"clearly something for the Village Pump" - Raised on VP:Policy. Andy Mabbett 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers

I'm currently working on citing up Doctor Who missing episodes to try and help keep it at Featured Article status. I've used web versions of a few pieces to source some information, although I've pointed the cites at the original print versions because they look better and more reliable as sources. I need page numbers for the cites to be fully acceptable at FAR, though, so I was wondering — is there any chance one of you fine gents could look up the page numbers for me of Richard Molesworth's "Out of the Vaults" articles on the sixties and the seventies from DWM 256 and 257, and Andrew Pixley and Jan Vincent-Rudzki's chapter "Junking" from the Second Doctor Handbook (or the complete Handbook reprint from Telos, if the same chapter is still present in that)? I'd be much obliged! Cheers. Angmering 21:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Italics vs. quotation marks

There might be merit in a "cite serial" template, but before it's created we should probably be sure that we've settled the thorny problem of italicizing vs. quotation marks. I'm still of the view that we should continue to italicize serial names like The Dalek Invasion of Earth, but that we should switch to quotation marks for episodes, both classic and new (so "Day of Reckoning" and "Daleks in Manhattan"). This would be a change only for new series episodes (and Torchwood, which ended up following the Who lead instead of the general Misplaced Pages guidelines). In fact, I've been delaying my response to this question because I didn't really want to reopen that can of worms, but since we've got another FAR on our hands we should probably try to settle it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that episode titles should be consistent with the MoS. The JPS 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've copied and pasted some relevant remarks from #Cite episode subpage proposal above - I thought it merited a new section if we're going to open this up again. Although I originally liked the consistency of italics for both original serials and new episodes, I've come to change my mind. Consistency with the Misplaced Pages-wide MoS is more important than consistency within the project. I think we should make the switch - so: The Keeper of Traken, but "New Earth". (Although if we do make that switch, I've got two questions - "Mission to the Unknown" or Mission to the Unknown, since it's a one-episode long "serial?" "The Five Doctors" or The Five Doctors, since its original broadcast was as a TV-movie (I think)?) --Brian Olsen 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

One more episode to be aware of in this proposal is the first episode of The Space Museum which is called "The Space Museum". Now this fact is noted on the page for the show but it will require watching when written about on other DW pages as the context of which is being referred to will decide whether italics or quotes should be used. MarnetteD | Talk 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this (episode names being in quotes) - as someone who only really edits "new" Doctor Who and Torchwood related topics, it makes the most sense to me. I don't think we need a vote/poll on this, as we are being consistent with WP:MoS. I'm happy to go through and start fixing formatting as soon as we decide it is OK. -- Chuq (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I think we should make the change, it's a pretty big shift from the way we've been doing things. We should probably keep this discussion active for a few more days before we start changing things, and hopefully a few more project members will chime in. (I agree we should avoid a formal vote/poll, though - we should be able to settle this just with discussion.) --Brian Olsen 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with quotation marks I guess. I agree on the point that it should be left a few more days though. Matthew 21:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it been a few more days yet? :P -- Chuq (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess - nobody with a differing opinion seems to care enough to speak up. Anybody got a good argument for keeping the italics for episode titles? Going once, going twice... --Brian Olsen 06:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that Doctor Who is one of the longest-running television series ever, and given that its quintessential Britishness will ensure that it outlasts all of humanity, and given that we must consider the physical capacity of Misplaced Pages, and given that the four characters needed to mark up italics will require double the storage space of the two quotation marks... oh, the heck with it. Where do we start? --Ckatz_spy 06:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am a voice in the wilderness, as I prefer italics, and can even give you rationale for using them (see archived discussion) However, consensus seems to be for quotation marks, so I'm not going to jump up and down defending my slight preference.Gwinva 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) ps. For those of you who can't be bothered wading through the archived discussion, the basic argument goes that quotations are used frequently throughout pages to refer to in-universe events, titles and concepts, so converting episodes to quotations would lead to confusion within articles, and general lack of clarity. Italics can be retained within WP's MOS if Doctor Who is classed as a 'related series of articles, episodes and books'.Gwinva 07:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember the original discussion - I didn't jump in then because I wasn't sure I understood your proposal. Is the type of classification you're describing used anywhere on Misplaced Pages for other large bodies of fiction? I think it might be a hard sell to the Misplaced Pages community at large. --Brian Olsen 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, the naming is currently like this:

The argument here is that the red cells should follow the format of the green and blue cells - not the yellow cell, as they do now. The original Doctor Who run uses a "TV show -> Serial -> Episode" structure. Doctor Who 2005 and Torchwood do NOT use this structure, hence they should use the regular formatting. I believe most of the people in the above discussion agree with changing of the red cells. However I think there is also a small group who think the yellow cell should change as well - I don't know how much consensus there is on this, but it is a separate argument. -- Chuq (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got the original series backwards - serials are in italics, individual episode titles are in quotes - so An Unearthly Child and "The Cave of Skulls". --Brian Olsen 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, fixed! -- Chuq (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and if consensus among Wikiproject Doctor Who contributors is for quotation marks for episodes, then I'll bow out of the discussion. If, however, everyone prefers italics, but is concerned it doesn't fit with WP as a whole, then I can re-outline my proposal (which is consistent within the Oxford Manual of Style, accepted on WP for British-based projects). Forget comparisons with other television series, this proposal is based on Doctor Who being a multi-media genre (which it is). Reclassifying it as such would make italics appropriate. See following, copied from archive:

(Oxford MOS says:) "Use roman without quotation marks for an ongoing series of books, journals, and related sequences of publications, if each volume within the series has an individual title." You therefore get: Encyclopedia Britannica Dal-Lek, Virgin New Adventures Lungbarrow. The format is not without precedent in television as you get things like (my mind's gone blank so imaginary example) The Warring World documentary When the Earth Blew Up. Doctor Who is more than a television series, it is a genre, an institution, a brand, a 'regular slot on television'. Argue in the approriate Misplaced Pages forums that Doctor Who should be re-classified as 'a related sequence of publications, films and television stories', then each episode, serial, film, novel, comic (and possibly even short story) requires italicised titles. Individual episodes within serials (like chapter points) use "episode" or, more correctly in Oxford style 'episode'. This format leaves Doctor Who used for the TVM only, as Doctor Who would be used everywhere else. It's easy enough to say 'the televison series first showed...' when explicitly referring only to that.

Hope that excerpt makes sense. I don't want to bore everyone... :) ! Question is, forget what might or might not be happening elsewhere... what do YOU want to do on these pages? A case can be made either way. I can explain further, or argue it with the powers-that-be, but only if people would prefer italics. If you want quotes, then I won't harp on. Gwinva 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I see your point, and I understand the rationale, but I can't forget what's happening elsewhere - if we don't want to be a part of Misplaced Pages, then we should move to another Wiki. I was semi-involved in (and heavily followed) an extremely long and ugly arbitration a few months back involving members of a project who were claiming an exception to the MoS, and it really made me see that consistency with Misplaced Pages as a whole is more important than consistency within a Wikiproject. So given that, I can't really see the difference between Who, which has books, games and audio CD's based on it, and Star Trek and Stargate, which have books, games, films and multiple series - any television show that inspires spin-off media would fall under the rational you propose. So even though I do think you could make a case, I'd still prefer to switch to follow the current MoS guidelines, and use quotes for individual episodes. --Brian Olsen 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this "consensus" then? :P -- Chuq (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it to me! I'm going to try and work on changing the language for the main Project page when I get a chance. And since nobody seems to have much opinion on my little picky questions, I'm going to declare - "Mission to the Unknown", because it was one episode, and The Five Doctors, both because it was originally a TV-movie (sort of) and because it was then broken up into an episodic serial. --Brian Olsen 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the style guidelines on the main page. --Brian Olsen 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I have placed an update about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Episodes#Doctor Who episode formatting - consensus reached -- Chuq (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus may have been reached, but I have to register my disagreement. While individual 25-minute 'episodes' may have names, those are almost never used here. When they are used, they are immediately qualified by serial name and episode number, e.g. The Daleks' Master Plan Episode 4 ("The Traitors"). Even within serial articles, a mention of an episode by name is rarer than a hen's tooth. There are no episode names in the supposed 'Episode List'. Instead, the serial name is ubiquitous and references to episodes are numeric within serial.

Thus in practice there is no ambiguity between serial and episode name. However, with the adopted convention there is a decided ambiguity between serial and (usually external) series names, and between pre- and post-1995 references. Thus we have the faintly ridiculous formal distinction between Death of the Daleks and "Daleks in Manhattan".

In my opinion, serial names should be double-quoted. Dmforcier 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot lengths

Someone (I don't know who yet) has put a great deal of effort into plot sections for various Who stories, that makes the article an awful length, can these be tagged to have them trimmed somewhat? The City of Death plot is an example Alastairward 11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Awful length" is a matter of opinion, I don't mind long plots - this is an encyclopaedia after all, and there's also nothing wrong with plots in articles, not to mention that plot is for four episodes of the story. Matthew 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to because I'm new here. Having said that, there seems to be a guideline/policy about it which I'm trying to find. There's a plot length discussion here and here, which might help. Totnesmartin 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a guideline, yes, there's no actual definition of too long though. Matthew 12:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some previous discussion on this that just rolled over into the archives - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_12#Lengthy_plot_summaries (ugly link, but it should work). From reading that, it's evidently a topic that comes up pretty often. (I'm also too new to make any recommendations, just wanted to mention more stuff to read.) Gwydionmom 15:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just go and ask at the Village Pump. Somebody must know! Totnesmartin 19:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to re-tell a work of fiction, and articles on fiction should contain mostly information relevant to the real world. Use plot summary for basic backgrounds and to support the real-world information. If it's something like Shakespeare and has inspired lots of other works and has had a lot of cultural significance (which should be shown in the article), larger plot summaries might be appropriate to aid as a general reference. Doctor Who is great and all, and has been around a long time, but is not on the same level as Shakespeare, so be careful if you are considering this last part of my message. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And yeah, City of Death seems excessive. Avoid the "play-by-play" level of detail. -- Ned Scott 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I should also say, even if not on Shakespeare's level, Doctor Who is still somewhat of a modern classic, so I would expect to read more about Doctor Who than say.. Friends (it's been a while since I've really watched TV..). -- Ned Scott 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, classic Science fiction, but not usually classic drama. Totnesmartin

I found some answers at the Village Pump, but nowt definite: Totnesmartin 14:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, I looked at a two parter from Star Trek, The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode) which comes out at the same broadcast length (roughly) as two Who stories, Revelation of the Daleks and City of Death. The Daleks plot was told in roughly the same number of words as the Star Trek episode, 1196 and 1131 words respectively. In comparison, City of Death was retold in a whopping 4738! This is ridiculous, its too long to read through without getting bogged down. It simply doesn't deserve an article of that length never mind a plot description that long. If anyone can point out the importance and/or notability of this episode in comparison to others or other articles, please do, otherwise it must be trimmed! Alastairward 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the plots arn't being written to long at all, I don't really mind them being of that length as long as we don't get too boged down on the minor details.--Wiggstar69 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

But 4738 words long, its a couple of screens in length, I might try trimming them when I've caught up on a few episodes Alastairward 16:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything over 1000 is definetly long !!! And even that is about the longest of all other media that publicize plot summaries. 400 for a "standard episode" is my personal guideline. 50 for really simple ones (children tv series). 800-1000 for complicated episodes. And I cannot reiterate this enough. (as Ned did as well it seems). scene-by-scene descriptions are BAD. potentially not fair-use of the episode's story, and often it has trouble identifying the important from the unimportant parts of the plotlines. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

... that copying and pasting summaries from the BBC (or any other website non-GFDL/PD) is not allowed. Matthew 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Auton stories

Template:Auton stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Core-Man 17:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Finish images

I've noticed that several Big finish releases don't have images of their covers ( Nocturne, I.D. & Urgent Calls etc>) Could someone add them?(Black Dalek 14:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)).

Ask you you shall receive! Both covers have been added. Thanks for the heads up. The Core-Man 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded Exotron (link) and Son of the Dragon (link) album covers for future insertion.

Thanks. I might create pages for the upcoing releases later. If someone could keep an eye on the Big Finish plays and upload thier covers. i'll be great. Also, no-one has scanned the image of Hex off The Settling for use on his page. it's been requested on his talk page for over a year now.(Black Dalek 18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)).

Valhalla (Doctor Who audio) needs it's cover. I severly don't undertsand the image process. IMPORTANT! (That's just to grab attention).Black Dalek 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Location: . The Core-Man 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Human Resources Part 1 cover now online and put with article. The Core-Man 09:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.(Black Dalek 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)).

Doctor Who Portal

I have made a suggestion for an alternative Doctor Who Portal on one of my user sub-pages: User:Akut/Doctor Who Portal. Please give your feedback. Thank you.--Wolf 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the existing one. Sorry. Percy Snoodle 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any other opinions?--Wolf 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes FAR

Good news everyone — the featured article review for Doctor Who missing episodes has closed, and the article has retained its status. Angmering 08:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations - that leaves the flagship article and the Tardis to cite up for the Project. LuciferMorgan 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who has such interest and so many editors that it's going to be an absolute bloody nightmare, that one. It's also so big and rather unwieldy an article — I've said before that it might need rebuilding and rewriting from the ground up and I still think that might not be a bad idea. TARDIS will probably be the easier job, but it's not really my field — it's a shame khaosworks and Josiah Rowe seem busy elsewhere these days, as I'm sure they could bring it up to scratch. Angmering 08:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend nominating any of those two anyway, but given the interest in the new series etc. don't be surprised if someone else will nominate. Good luck to whoever tackles the flagship article - they need it. LuciferMorgan 11:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

DWM #380

One of the CDs listed on the Big Finish audio page is Doctor Who Magazine #380. Can someone put up an article for this or remove the link, it goes to the main DW page. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreman (talk • contribs) 09:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Sorry thanks for the catch! The Core-Man 12:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead Links

I just removed a link to CD06 in the Big Finish Listing of DW Audios and replaced it with the individual story links. I think that it's great the we link future adventures, but once the story has been released a page should go up. This is the only instance that a link was created, but an article was never made. Just thought you should know. The Core-Man 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:TARDIS1.png

The Tardis image has been determined to be a derivative work, and therefore the originator does not have the rights to it. If it's to be kept, it needs:

1. to be removed from all non-article locations--no more using it as a logo in Misplaced Pages space, user space or any talk page.
2. to have a fair use case made for each use in every article it is included. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

--Tony Sidaway 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember this already being discussed before. It's not a derivative as it is simply a police box. Doctor Who holds the trade mark of a police box, but they do not own the copyright on every policy box in existence. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the source. The author specifically designed it as a version of the TARDIS. The TARDIS is copyrighted. The image is derivative. Derivative works are prohibited. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson You can easily use a GFDL version of a normal police box and use that as your logo. - Shazaam! - <*> 03:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's still a bit absurd given the image, but fine, we'll get another image of a blue police box. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a genuine free image of a real Tardis hanging around somewhere on Misplaced Pages. Someone took a picture of a model of a Tardis on display in a museum. --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be Image:TARDIS.jpg, which I've transparentised (dreadfully) to Image:TARDIS-trans.png. Will 13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Still not sure about the status of this, but it'll do for now. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just be sure I have this straight — someone in 1937 draws a picture of a TARDIS-style police box, and promptly drops dead. Here in 2007 we can upload said picture to Misplaced Pages, use it wherever we like for whatever we like, and everything's fine and dandy. But if someone in 2007 creates an image of a police box and releases it under a completely free licence, it cannot be used freely? Angmering 15:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales required

This is a list of some images that appear in Doctor Who, Torchwood, and other related articles many of which lack necessary fair use rationales. The strikethrough is used here to indicate an image that has been provided with a rationale. They all need to be fixed. They will be deleted under our copyright policy if this is not done. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MisterSaxon.jpg

User:Tony Sidaway is giving me a hard time about Image:MisterSaxon.jpg which I loaded in order to replace Image:SoundOfDrums.png which i agreed with him had a bad rational. He clearly did not read the description I put up explaining that it is from a Dr. Who trailer and that, being an image of Simm in a Dr. Who trailer... means it's a picture of Saxon. What is the point of asking for all this documentation if he;s not going read it. Somebody please help me explain this to him.--Dr who1975 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a picture of John Simm grinning. That's replaceable by a free image. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a load of felgercarb, Tony. Creative works are copyrighted, hence Mr Saxon is not replaceable. Matthew 09:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by this? I'm seeing the premise and the conclusion but not the reasoning. --Tony Sidaway 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

a) His hair style is different than in pictures of him off the set. b) the picture is grainy like it is him on TV... like a Prime Minister giving a speech c) He's standing in front of an english government building (possibly parliament or the clock tower) as a PM might do if giving a speech on TV. d) You can see he's wearing a suit. I haven't seen any pictures of Simm wearing a suit. e) Do you know where to find a picture of Simm grinning. I haven't seen one. (BTW... you must be on about this due to references of Saxon having a "trademark smile"... I never supported this notion nor does it really come into my rational for use of this image)

I find it odd that you agreed with me that Image:Leia Organa Ep5 DVD.jpg is irreplacable when, by the same logic, it could be replaced with a simple picture of Carrie Fisher. Tony... have you watched the trailer? I've sasked you like 5 times if there's a way that I can prove to you that this is from the trailer? Please let the people here know what we can do.--Dr who1975 13:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually that particular image of Princess Leia does have problems. It's far too high resolution for a start. The main reason I'd not object to such a picture (if rescaled) is that, thirty years later, Carrie Fisher no longer resembles that young woman. While it could just conceivably be possible to source free images taken in the seventies, this seems unlikely.

And I'd thank you not to harangue me any more with that nonsensical question. I do not have any doubt that that picture is from the trailer. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fisher had no other pictures taken of her in 1983? Moving back to this picture... if you know it's from the trailer then what is the problem? The entire logic of your argument hinges that it is "simply" a picture of Simm but if you know it's from the trailer then context has been given so I don't see your logic in fighting this.--Dr who1975 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I look at it: Mr. Saxon is a character. John Simm is a real person. Any picture of an individual cannot substitute for a character they played. You can't caption some old picture of John Simm and say "this is Mr. Saxon" because it isn't. It's John Simm. -- MisterHand 15:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends. The picture in question is just John Simm grinning. Tell John Simm a joke and take his picture. Bingo, a picture of Mr Saxon. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless he's in costume as Mr. Saxon, it wouldn't qualify. The discussion is about Mr. Saxon, not about Mr. Simm. And unlike a character like Borat, I don't think Simm is going around doing appearances as Saxon. -- MisterHand 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The free image on here of Borat isn't actually free, it's copyrighted - as Borat is a copyright creative work. Matthew 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I imagine Mr. Saxon is the same -- which means it's impossible to get a free image of the character. -- MisterHand 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Fenton has got himself mixed up. He's confusing copyright with trademark. The picture Image:Borat ComicCon 2006.jpg is apparently free, taken by someone at an event where Baron-Coen appeared in character, and used on Misplaced Pages under CC-BY-SA free license.. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's about it, really. If you want a free picture of Mr Saxon, invite John Simm to come in character to a Who convention and sign DVDs. --Tony Sidaway 15:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying this picture is hurting Mr. Simm's ability to sell pictures at sci fi conventions? I'm confused.--Dr who1975 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are confused. No, I'm saying we don't use a non-free image when a free one could be obtained, and I've given some examples of how one would obtain a suitable picture of the enigmatic Mr Saxon, were we to need one. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. For starters, I live in the United States... he lives in England. I'm really starting to have trouble beleiving you're serious.--Dr who1975 19:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I happen to live in London, and free images can be created here as well as in the United States, so it's not a problem for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Using this criteria, no photo of a fictional character is acceptable, since I could always get my buddy or my cat to dress like the character and take a photo of them. -- MisterHand 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a suitable alternative. This is a special case where the character, as far as we know anything about him, is represented by John Simm standing in front of Big Ben and grinning. --Tony Sidaway 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to replace the image with one of Saxon and his oxygen mask, tapping on the table. -- MisterHand 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That should be loaded as it's own image if it is applicable to a different article, it depicts more than just Saxon and thus does simply illustrate the subject of the article in which it is used, which is what make this picture notable in the first place.--Dr who1975 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know much about Mr Saxon, really. He's given orders to the military during alien incidents, he's stood as a candidate in a parliamentary election and perhaps been elected. He seems to be involved in trying to blacken the Doctor's name, and publicity stills show that he's played by John Simm and he has a smarmy grin. In a few weeks time we'll know a lot more about him and we'll have lots of screen shots that actually illustrate concrete, encyclopedic facts about him, and then we can use those screen shots in constructing an encyclopedia. We can wait. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

These are encyclodedic facts... the BBC had announced that he's Mister Saxon and the picture of him is from the previews.... I mean... if I took a picture of the Olympic dome in Beijing would you say it;s not the Olympic dome yet because the Beijing Olympics have only been announced (it's not a perfect analogy, I know... but surely you see what I'm trying to get at... these are facts). Now if I put up a picture and marked it as "Master6" I could totally see where you might have a problem.... but I didn;t do that. And, if Mr. Saxon turns out to be an alias of the Master... that would change things a bit, but that's the beauty of wikipedia... it can change.--Dr who1975 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying we should wait until we have something to write about him. A picture a John Simm grinning doesn't illustrate anything yet because we don't even know who Mr Saxon is, really. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that he's a character being played by John Simm, in Doctor Who. Much as the Doctor is a character currently played by David Tennant, in Doctor Who. A picture of Tennant playing Casanova would not be appropriate to depict the Tenth Doctor; nor would a picture of an unshaven Tennant in a Rocky Horror T-shirt. Right now there are only so many available pictures of Simm in-character as Saxon. So if one chooses to depict him, visually, there are only so many viable and strictly correct options. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.42.213 (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Without a broadcast episode, how does a picture of John Simm grinning wearing a dark suit differ according to whether it's supposed to represent DCI Sam Tyler or Harold Saxon, or simply John Simm as John Simm grinning wearing a dark suit? Unless there's something unique about the grin or his appearance, the picture is replaceable. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're really spliting hairs there. I would say that a broadcast Dr. Who trailer absolutely counts just as much as a broadcast episode, the only thing it doesn't count for is his first in plot appearance. However... since this was not the type of trailer that featured on the set interviews it stands to reason that this image does relate to some plot element of the character and that the footage of Simm standing in front of Westminster was indeed filmed in character (even if they decide not to use that footage in the final episdoe).--Dr who1975 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about image rights on Misplaced Pages. However, I do know that the picture in question is a photograph of Mr. Saxon, as played by John Simm. It is taken from the trailer as mentioned - a trailer that does not consist of backstage material, rather clips from episodes. This image is a still taken from a clip in which John Simm is grinning into a camera because he is acting, playing the role of Mr. Saxon. I really do not understand why there is a debate raging on this issue. Dr who1975 is right and Tony Sidaway is wrong regarding the issue of whether or not the image depicts Mr. Saxon. As for image rights, as I say, I haven't a clue.

Italics/speech marks

Usually on Misplaced Pages, speech marks are used for episode titles within articles, and italics are used for individual television series, for example Doctor Who and Torchwood and "Evolution of the Daleks" and "The Lazarus Experiment". I was just wondering what makes Doctor Who the exception to this? Why are episode named italicized, when every other episode name on Misplaced Pages has speech marks? -Trampikey 22:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Italics are used on long works. A serial is a long work composed of shorter works (and the shorter works use quotation marks). Matthew 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So the episdoes (short works) of Doctor Who (a long work) should have quotation marks... -Trampikey 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. An episode of the new series (e.g. Rose) should/would have quotation marks. Matthew 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But so should the old series. -Trampikey 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It was recently agreed to change this at the discussion further up this page at - Italics vs. quotation marks. So yes, episodes should now be formatted with quotation marks! I haven't actually changed any articles myself - not yet anyway - but feel free to start using the new formatting. Note the jury appears to be out on serial titles; but episodes titles, old and new, should use quotation marks. -- Chuq (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also haven't had much of a chance to change the articles yet, but the main project page does now reflect the new policy, conforming to the MoS. The idea of italicizing serial titles was brought up at the MoS page for titles (at least, I think that's where it was brought up) - everyone (i.e., non-Doctor Who project people) seemed to agree that it made sense - so serial titles get italics, episode titles get quotes. --Brian Olsen 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is there's no way to do it all in a fell swoop. Everything will be wishy-washy and inconsistent if you do it as you come around to it. And of course the hideousness of placing Genesis of the Daleks next to "Evolution of the Daleks" is what necessitates the episodes being in italics, not that I agree with this. Outside Doctor Who articles, I make sure episodes use the quotation marks format, it's just weird inside Who articles. As far as I can tell, aren't individual Wikiprojects allowed to wave these guidelines if they have their own consistent style guide?~Zythe 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just follow Misplaced Pages's rules on this - yes it'll take work, but it'll look better in the end. Can't anyone use AWB or something? -Trampikey 22:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Zythe, here - WikiProjects aren't allowed to waive the main Misplaced Pages guidelines. I thought they were for a while, but learned in a recent (very ugly) arbitration that they're not. If we create an exception for ourselves, we need to have a good reason, and consistency or attractiveness of formatting aren't considered good enough reasons. --Brian Olsen 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List renaming

Someone has moved List of Doctor Who serials to Doctor Who serials - which I think is a bad thing - and List of Doctor Who DVD releases to Doctor Who DVD releases - which I think is less of a bad thing, as the article does discuss the release schedule as well as listing the releases, but they broke the history in doing it. Neither can be straightforwardly moved back. What do people think? Should we ask an admin to move one or both articles back? Percy Snoodle 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Another user has requested that the List of Doctor Who serials be speedily deleted so that the move back can go ahead (I've already moved the talk page back, and Misplaced Pages didn't have any problem with that - seems talk pages have different rules!). The user that moved this article also moved List of Doctor Who DVD releases. Stephenb (Talk) 11:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand

Both New Zealand Doctor Who Fan Club and its fanzine Time Space Visualiser have been up for deletion recently (in one case speedied then restored). It's been suggested to me that these would probably work better as a basis for Doctor Who in New Zealand, to parallel similar articles like Doctor Who in Australia. unfortunately, I don't have the information that would fill out an article like that, but hopefully someone here might...? Grutness...wha? 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning

This discussion may be of interest to the group. The trend appears to be towards making spoiler warnings go away. Please consider weighing in on the discussion. -Ebyabe 12:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the debate's closed. This version, anyway. But it looks like it'll come up again. Interesting reading, in any case. -Ebyabe 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't believe this, but the discussion's been re-opened. Very heated topic, apparently... -Ebyabe 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. Most of the spoiler tags in Doctor Who-related articles follow the plot summary section heading, which is labelled "Plot". It seems to me that someone who reads a plot section would expect to see a discussion of the plot, so readers who don't want to know the plot will either not read the article, or else will avoid reading the clearly marked plot section.

However with recent episodes, most of the public who want to see the episode will not have had a chance to see it yet, so it's perhaps appropriate to have the extra warning, just as a memory jogger.

So how about making this into policy a WikiProject style recommendation? Something like: episode articles over two years old do not need any extra warning after the word "Plot", but articles on more recent episodes should probably have a {{spoiler}} tag.

The situation is more difficult when writing articles that span many episodes, however. For instance it would be difficult to write an article about the TARDIS, the Daleks or even the Tenth Doctor that didn't include a host of references to recent events. I suggest that it's best to assume that someone who comes to this encyclopedia to read about the TARDIS does really want to know all there is about the TARDIS, including recent events. So there is no need to include a special warning in the article, because it's implicit in Misplaced Pages's nature as an encyclopedia that we seek to bring all information relevant to a subject. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to handle this in articles like TARDIS and so on would be to put descriptions of events that have happened during the past two years under a separate heading such as "Events in recent episodes". This would enable recent information that might color the way one views certain items to be slowly phased into the article. For instance if the article on the Daleks had existed in the 1960s there would be no mention of their ability to fly and hover (though the TV 21 comic daleks' flying platforms would be mentioned I suppose). But as representatios of daleks improved into the 1980s we would see this slowly phased in first via the "Events in recent episodes" section, eventually taking their place in the main part of the article in accordance with Neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Following on from these comments, I've been removing spoiler tags from Doctor Who episode articles starting with the Hartnell episodes and currently extending to the Davidson episodes. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Doctors & Companions and Infoboxes

I searched a few of the Doctors and Companions and notice that some of them don't have Infoboxes for them. I think that we should try to standard with the Template:Infobox Actor settings. William Hartnell's infobox should be the basic way they are set up with their current age (or age at passing) and the flag from where they are born. Let me know what you think? The Core-Man 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge List of Doctor Who villains & List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens & List of Doctor Who robots

Please read all of my proposal and think about it before responding. Isn't this a bit redundant? There's even some characters who are repetatively mentioned on multiple pages. The problem is that many villians are also monsters or Robots. I'm not just suggesting a merge but a rename of the unbrella list. The monsters and robots should br listed alongside the villians group so that the Aliens can be listed on their own... we could re name the aliens one "Doctor Who aliens" and the other one cold become "Doctor Who villians, robots, and monstes" or better yet "Minor characters and alien races from Doctor Who". This would allow the unit list to stay sepreate since unit people have never been monsters, robots, or villians.--Dr who1975 05:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense. I never know which list to look at first. 'Minor characters' etc is probably a good title, especially as the major characters have their own pages. However, merging is likely to make the page too long. Perhaps someone can think of a more obvious split?Gwinva 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

When you say "too long" what do you mean? What constitutes too long?--Dr who1975 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE for what constitutes too long. In summary: it used to be that 32 KB was too much; now better browsers allow larger pages to download/edit, so ideal length is not much more than 50 or 60 KB but anything over 100 KB should be broken up. At the moment Villians is 97 KB, and monsters is 68 KB. Gwinva 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The two are hardly synonymous. The monsters page should stay separate as it's a directory of races which works well.~Zythe 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Your response is, in and of itself, an example of why this list does not work well. You changed your terminology from monsters to races in mid pararaph but those words mean two different things. If it's a directory of races.. it should be called races... and not contain individual monsters such as Aggedor.. .Aggedor is a monster but also a character and there is most definetly not an alien race named Aggador... also... if it's only races... why are characters such as Magnus Greel mentioned (he's not a monster or alien... aleternatively some people might think of him as a monster but he's also a villian which tells us that the monsters should become a part of the villians page). Please try to understand what I'm talking about. Having monsters grouped with races is inconsistent.--Dr who1975 18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The monsters and aliens list should be reduced to Aliens and the villians list should be turned into a villians and monsters or minor characters list.--Dr who1975 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Y'know what List of Doctor Who robots should also be merged into the second list... Just because they're not categories doesn't mean they can't suffer from over catagorization.--Dr who1975 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my initial idea since the comments above were written. I still think the list should be combined... but in a very specific way so as to avoid over categorization but also repsect some of the other fan stuff buitl around these lists.--Dr who1975 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You only really need to move all individual villains to the villains or henchmen page, with a mention of their race at the monsters/aliens or robots or whatever it is if necessary. The {{main}} template works well for this. The system as it is is very comprehensive and works well, but I'd very much like for everyone to wait until other project members such as khaosworks (talk · contribs) and Tim! (talk · contribs) can give input as this is a very big change you are suggesting. :) ~Zythe 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With size concerns having been raised on these pages in the past, merging them would seem absurd. A huge list including everything, from a description of the Editor to a description of the Argolin race to a description of Spider Robots, would be a completely incoherent jumble of Doctor Who trivia. Separate lists with clear themes allow this information to be presented logically and with the links in the Doctor Who template panel, these pages are easily accessible and one can switch from one to another by merely scrolling down to the bottom of a list and clicking a link. Admittedly, there is some overlap with say a robotic villain, but in most cases a link is placed on one list to the entry on the other resolving any issues arising from this. The names of the lists have worked for a long time and there are many redirects set up to address variations. Wolf of Fenric 19:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Been thinking about this. There is (inevitably) overlap between the Monsters, villains, robots and henchmen pages, which can lead to repetition (as people add something they think is missing, or don't know where to put it). The lists grow ever longer (with new characters invented being invented all the time), becoming more unwieldly, and filled with redirects and see also tags etc. How about a complete reorganisation according to the following lines: Create 'Doctor Who races'. Under each race, detail about planet (as appropriate) and stories they are in, with subheadings for notable villains, characters and henchmen of that race (androids affiliated with, or created by that race could be listed here, also.). So you get Cats followed by info about New Earth, and (subheading) Sisters of Plenitude, (subsubheading) Sister Jatt, Novice Hame. You suddenly see the whole race together, with all the main events happening. ('Human' would be fairly long, though!!). Such a page would be impossibly long, so broken up alpabetically, not by subcategories. So, you get Doctor Who races A-F, Doctor Who races G-M, etc, which are easily broken down or redistributed as Russel T Davies throws more creations our way. Would that work? Or, as Wolf of Fenric, says above, just leave it as it is!!Gwinva 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a whole new level of difficulty to the system is not there yet. Let's not cut off our noses to spite our faces :P ~Zythe 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see Gwinva is putting thought into it which is good. I don;t think you need an alien races list seperated by alphabet so much as a list of monsters, robots, and villians that is seprated alphabetically. The aliens list on it's own doesn;t seem too long. I wonder what the Star Trek peope do? I'll have to look.--Dr who1975 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the merge but if it goes ahead I believe we would have to reduce every entry to about one line per entry to prevent bloat. Maybe this would be a good idea. Tim! 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be what the Star Trek group did with List of Star Trek characters. I realize it's not as purty but maybe we should do that.--Dr who1975 00:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates for External Links section

This is tied into the whole italics/quotation marks discussion. I've started to make the changeover to quotation marks for episode titles - I've just done "Rose" and "The End of the World" so far - and I've realized there's a problem with all the templates that are used in the External Links and Reviews sections. These all automatically italicize the names. I started to create new templates to use for the new series - they'd be exactly the same, except they would use quotation marks instead of italics. I made one template Template:Brief ep, which you can see on the page for "The End of the World", and then realized that we could also change the existing templates to use neither italics or quotes, which could then be inserted on the episode articles themselves.

So the two options, as I see it, are - 1) Modify the existing template, which will then mean going into every serial and episode article and adding '' '' or " ", but we then wouldn't have several almost completely redundant templates, or 2) Create a second set of almost identical templates, which will then mean changing just the articles for the new series and Torchwood. (A third option, which I've done for "Rose", is not using templates at all, but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of having them in the first place.) Thoughts? --Brian Olsen 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Project-Class Doctor Who pages
• NA-importance Doctor Who pages
• WikiProject Doctor Who
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists