Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Doctor Who. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Regenerations vs incarnations

That's twice we've had the number of regenerations changed from nine to ten. Regeneration is the act of change, incarnation is the persona. Unless the edits are including Matt Smith's portrayal, which'd be a bit presumptuous. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I forgot how anal this crew can get. Drmargi (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The First Doctor is an incarnation, the susequent Doctors are reincarnations. — Edokter • Talk • 13:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Either usage is correct depending on context and which dialect of English you use. What we don't have is ten incarnations, which is the point. Drmargi (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that *is* the point ... ten Doctors (incarnations), nine changes (regenerations). We can call them chickens and eggs and it would still be ten Doctors (chickens) and nine changes (eggs). MartinSFSA (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 10 incarnations of "The Doctor" (not of "The First Doctor" as Drmargi put it). The First Doctor was "generated" when he began life as The Doctor. The Second Doctor came into existence when The Doctor was "REgenerated", and therefore the 1st regeneration yielded the 2nd Doctor - so there are one fewer regenerations than the number of incarnations. So far, the Doctor has only fully regenerated nine times. Although I wonder if the correction might related to the whole hand/Donna/blue-suit-not-quite-the-Doctor-who-went-with-Rose issue, if they're counting that as a regeneration. If they are, they're wrong of course :) —Shübop "Shada Ng" Âlang 19:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just toss the last one up to "anon edit". --Human.v2.0 (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

“”””””””Throughout the programme's long history there have been controversial revelations about the Doctor. In The Brain of Morbius (1976), it was hinted that the First Doctor may not have been the first incarnation (although the other faces depicted may have been incarnations of the Time Lord Morbius). In subsequent stories, the First Doctor has always been shown as the earliest incarnation of the Doctor.””””””””””””””””

Meaning we only know of the ones we have seen on TV. Think about that for a second. ON TV. 203.171.196.199 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Executive Producers

The article currently states Russell T. Davies and Julie Gardner as the Exec. Producers, but Steven Moffat, Piers Wenger and Beth Willis are now well into their time as the Exec. Producers on the show. Series 5 has been in production for quite a while now, should the credit be changed? Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps display both? Broadcast-wise, we're still in the middle of the RTD/Gardner era. --Cartoonmoney (talk)

Listed them both for now. Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actors who have played the Doctor

The article says that only once has a particular Doctor been played by two different actors, in The Five Doctors. However, the special features on The Dalek Invasion of Earth DVD state that some scenes had to be shot with a different actor, after Hartnell injured his back in the course of shooting. The Doctor's only ever seen from the back through these scenes, of course. Should we count this?

No, for the same reasons we don't list stuntmen who have played the character in scenes. A temporary stand-in is not really noteworthy. magnius (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cybermen

A new edit says "they were eventually wiped out." - is this so? Nobody ever gets wiped out forever in sci-fi. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This'd refer to Revenge of the Cybermen, which has remained a final end to the Cybermen in continuity until the new series. I agree, it's not relevant, it stays like it is until some new writer decides differently. It's not even relevant to the main entry. MartinSFSA (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen RotC since it was broadcast so I missed that. But yeah, not really relevant to this article. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not relevent to this article? Can you explain why not? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.173.149 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the one putting it forward, but I'd guess it's because that'd be something for the Cyberman article, not the main Doctor Who one. MartinSFSA (talk)

(Edit conflict)The factoid is relevant to the Cyberman article. but as an "in-universe" thing it doesn't really apply to an article about a TV drama series. They may have been shown being wiped out in 1975 (assuming any statements in Revenge of the Cybermen to that effect were true) but they've turned up a few times since then, and have been retconned into the 2005+ series of course. Nothing ever gets wiped out forever in Sci-Fi. Except Fury from the Deep etc. :( Totnesmartin (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the example I should have brought up to start off with is the Daleks: wiped out in their first appearance, it's suggested in their second appearance that this was still their true demise in the remote future...which no one is happy with. What's remarkable with Revenge is its held onto with subsequent stories, until everyone's sick and tired of the whole thing and the Cybermen are rebooted. Apart from the Cybermen entry there's the Chronology, if that's what you're into.MartinSFSA (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Characters--The Doctor

In the article 'Characters' and the sub article 'The Doctor,' when exsplaining all of the doctor who regeneration cross overs it does not mention the children in need special demensions in time, in which included the third {His last apperance due to his untimely death in 1996, right before the TV movie aired}, the fith, the sixth, the seventh and for a short scene even the forth, who until then and scence {Except for his recent audio episode} had never returned for an episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.145.212 (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See List of Doctor Who serials and Dimensions in Time. DonQuixote (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

When do we change the infobox?

Maybe a little early right now (with Tennant's last episode being January 1st) - but after his regeneration, when will the infobox (and indeed the lede section) be changed. In particular - what about the image at the top, as the new logo technically won't be the current one till it's shown on broadcast. Or is it just as simple as "episode over/he's regenerated/change the article" 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Convention and consensus here strongly suggest that we wait until the episode has aired. Rodhull andemu 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, without a deadline and not being a news/rumor site, the change of the lead actor can wait for after the broadcast ends on Jan 1. Same goes for the logo - if there is going to be a new one - it can wait for after the first episode using the new one airs. - J Greb (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ye - wasn't suggesting a change now - was asking how soon after broadcast of the episode before changing. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

New Tardis?

Kind of a follow-up to the new logo, and having heard rumors, and seen this in a recent IP edit - what do people know (and what can we source) about a TARDIS re-design? My girlfriend, who's active on a forum or two about David Tennant, mentioned that she's heard it's only an interior re-design (which would make sense to me) - can we nail this down, and if indeed it is only the interior, it probably needs to go into History of Doctor Who like with the new logo. (If for some ungodly reason they ARE scrapping the blue police box, then we really need good sourcing, and it could stay in here.) umrguy 42 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are clear, albeit subtle changes to the Tardis design, which is most likely that the edit refers too. Little things like white window frames and a return of the St John's Ambulance sticker are evident in set pics [1], compared to older pics [2]. magnius (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but do white window frames, and a return of a sticker count as a "re-design"? (Discounting the rabid fans who were upset about window dimensions on the show's return ;D) Like I said, I've heard internal, which would also make sense, just we'd need a definite source on it. umrguy 42 18:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it does constitute a redesign - it's reminiscent of the 1st Doctor era TARDIS. Plus, going on the fact the TARDIS was plumetting back to Earth ablaze with everything in ruins... Looks like it should be classed as such. Thomdalladay (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Grayed some of the window panes, too, I see. Still, not "drastic", I would say.) umrguy 42 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blue Peter are doing a comp for a design for the TARDIS console. I got the impression it was for one episdoe only, but i may be wrong, and they mey actually be redisigning the TARDISinterior --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already known that the interior is being redesigned, but this BP comp doesn't appear to be for The Doctor's own tardis. magnius (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Appearance

Doctor Who references were made in the classic MS-DOS game Hugo 2: Whodunit. The player, controlling Hugo's wife Penelope, must enter a phone booth, call the police, and then dial a number found on a nearby sidewalk. Penelope is then transported to what appears to be another planet, where she must kill a Dalek with a gun found earlier in the game to rescue a man. The man refers to himself as the Doctor, and gives Penelope his screwdriver, needed to complete the game. The phone booth resembles the TARDIS, especially in the fact that it teleports the player through space. Mego (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Dr. Who Logo

There is now a new DW logo, can someone please change the picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.173.149 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is not the current logo until Spring 2010. magnius (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But we could add it to the text of History of Doctor Who like the old diamond style logo, couldn't we? So Why 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is probably a place for it somewhere on one or more Who articles, just not main title card pic just yet. magnius (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The caption could be updated too (last used, most recent - current is a bit misleading as bbc has started to use it - although not on the (broadcast) main titles as yes) Verbal chat 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it to History of Doctor Who. Regards So Why 16:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Man, somewhere between a season ten Benton and a season twelve Brigadier. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we put the new logo up now, seeing as we won't see it again? JFBeard (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has changed from the above - we will use the new logo when the series uses in on screen, not before. Regards So Why 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was used on screen at the end of the "End of Time" part two broadcast in the UK around 1930, 1st Jan 2010. Also now the banner on the Dr Who website, and carried on the front cover of Dr Who Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.146.56 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Read on down. They're playing hear no evil, see no evil and hiding behind conveniently interpreted policies to avoid using it for some mysterious reason. Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Language of Circles

Could some expert do a short thing--I know the article is terribly long already--but I have a fascination with what appears to be the Time Lord alphabet/language. I noted this writing on documents near Timothy Dalton in "The End of Time", recall it from a few VERY early episodes decades ago, and on eBay there is a "Dr. Who" ring with these same beautiful symbols. As an iconologist, I'd love to know where that came from and if there's any sort of story behind it.76.195.83.35 (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Gallifreyan writing has only been used in the revival episodes (2005+). It has never been used before that - what you may be mistaking it for is the Seal of Rassilon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sealofrassilon.svg). There is also now a Seal of the Time Lords, which is the symbol similar to the language which was emblazoned on Rassilon's chest (and on the Time Lord head pieces). ThomDalladay ^(Talk) 08:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

infobox picture (huh?)

Okay the infobox picture in the 2010 logo (when it shouldn't be) - but when you click on it it goes to the 2007 logo page (and the text still says 2007) - so how is it showing the 2010 one? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Cache problem. Someone uploaded the 2010 one over the 2007 one but it was reverted. The server has not yet caught up with it though. I'll remove the incorrect revisions. Regards So Why 22:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

and now it's been deleted. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

back now - and fixed to the 2007 one. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see my post above. I removed all revisions except the correct one from the file to make it compliant with the NFCC. Hopefully people will stop uploading the 2010 one over it, it already exists after all. Regards So Why 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the titlecard be updated now, since Tennant's era is over? Thomdalladay (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anything aired under the new title card? Or are we trying to be "ahead of the curve"? - J Greb (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a trailer with the Doctor Who logo next to the "DW" TARDIS, and BBC's microsite has a different logo, with the "DW" TARDIS between the words "Doctor" and "Who". Sceptre ^(talk) 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's jumping the gun... Sure, it's not aired with the logo yet, however the current titlecard displayed is Tennant's era, which is officially over since the 11th Doctor has been introduced, surely that's reason enough (don't get me wrong, you do have a valid point). What would be deemed most appropriate at this stage? Thomdalladay (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The End of Time (both parts) has finished, and preview with the new title card has run in the US on BBCAmerica as well. Clearly, both the BBC and BBCAmerica (which now has the first-run contract for DW episodes) are moving forward with the new Doctor Who identity. If you're looking for a reliable source regarding what's current in Doctor Who-land, you look no further than the BBC. Give that, it strikes me as appropriate to make the change. Drmargi (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

After making a small edit just now, it strikes me you've got an inconsistency here: you list the new Doctor and the new production team, but have the old title card despite its having been replaced by the new one as the official identity of DW according to the BBC. That's a bit WP:POV or WP:OR-ish to insist on the old one until a new episode with the new title card appears. The title card is one of many ways the show presents the Doctor Who brand, and clearly the new logo should be on the article now. Drmargi (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Officially, the new logo doesn't exist yet, as the first episode to use has yet to be aired. So it is pointless to have an image that no one can identify with. — Edokter • Talk • 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It does exist, it's being actively promoted and is being used to brand the show by the BBC beginning with the Series 5 preview that was shown in the US and UK following The End of Time, Part Two. We're behind current by clinging to the old logo, and it needs to be changed. Your contention that it doesn't exist until the first episode of S5 is entirely WP:POV, and a reader's ability to identify with the logo is not germane. The role of an encyclopedia is to inform. Leave the identification to the fan sites. Drmargi (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This might be a stupid question, but have we seen a change in the merchandising trade dress yet? I know there is at least the DVD box coming which uses the surfboard, but has there been anything else announced? And will that material be using the current logo or the new one? - J Greb (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: If the logo is just being used to tease/promote series 5, changing it here feels a little like shilling for the BBC. - J Greb (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we have to use the most recent logo? One could argue that the 70s "diamond" logo is the most widely known and the one most identified with the programme, and that should be used.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

At one time this was true, but now with the great success of the new series, the current one will be the most recognised (in some areas anyway) Etron81 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but it could be argued that all of them are instantly recognisable since they all have "Doctor Who" printed across them in some form or another - that alone makes things rather obvious! Thomdalladay (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Two official sources indicating the new logo 'officially' exists: The trailer after The End of Time and the BBC microsite, located at http://bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/newyear/ Plus as mentioned above the new production team is listed, that does make an inconsistency. Surely those three make it appropriate to change? Thomdalladay (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We know that there is a new logo, two in fact, but we don't know which version will appear in the title sequence, which I assume is what we are looking for? That said, I have no objection to changing the logo as long as we can agree which one to use. Maybe this one is best, as it displays both together [3]. magnius (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The aforementioned logo image seems to be the more prominent - it was the main one released when the new logo was announced and the current Spring 2010 trailer displays that version at the end also. ThomDalladay ^(Talk) 08:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

And the BBC could scrap production tomorrow. Or re think the logo. Or have it only for a few episodes of the series. All of which are why WP:CRYSTAL exists.

I'll rephrase my question above: Has the new logo be used beyond a few promotional points? If not, it can wait til later in the year.

And even then, a good argument can be made for using a more recognizable logo - of which IMO the diamond, neon, and surfboard are equally good choices - instead of "It's new, gotta use it".

- J Greb (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

True, those are well known variants (and perhaps one of them should be used for the main titlecard). As for the hypothetical scenarios, they're incredibly unlikely - I'd go as far as saying borderline impossible due to the amount spent on development of the logos... It'd cost the BBC too much to advertise everything then cancel it before the airing of the first episode. ThomDalladay ^(Talk) 08:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it does fall under the category of "Shit can, and often does, happen." Pushing for it in the 'box is assuming that "shit won't happen" - guessing at a future state. That alone should be enough to wait for the shows to air before changing the image.

I'm also not a fan of "new image because it's a new image". Infoboxes should be the image most likely to "click" with the reader. Right now, the series five logo is at the bottom of the 10 logos, pretty much in a tie with the original text only one and the Times New Roman text only logo.

Last thought - I mentioned above that this feels like shilling for the BBC. Essentially, pushing the new logo on the article is helping the BBC to establish the new branding of the show. This is something we really should not be doing. If thought is that "This image should be the most recognizable logo. So we should use it." We are pushing a POV at the least, or, at the worst, creating the notability. - J Greb (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is a encyclopedia, surely it should carry the logo which is in use by the programme at the moment, as this is factual the "current" logo of the Doctor Who brand? As of the end of the "End of Time- Part two" that is the new Who logo. Not just for series 5, but to be carried on all Doctor Who branding. The logo and brand transcend the series nullifying your claim that it should be changed when it comes to air. The new logo as of 1st January is carried on all games, books, website, magazines etv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.146.56 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that image might not be the logo. It is a promotional image. Keeping the old logo would be more encyclopedic because it is the logo of the series, and of its most recent episode. We should wait until the first episode of series 5 to change it. Whoniverse93 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

According to it's non-free rationale the image in the infobox is there to aid indentification and therefore needs to be the one that most people will identify with Doctor Who and in my opinion that is currently the series 1-4 + specials one. Edgepedia (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The new Specials DVD, to be released 2 Feburary [4] has the old logo. Edgepedia (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify, the picture is there as a tool for identification? So in theory it could be a picture of tennant and his sonic screwdriver or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.133 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope - Standing consensus, or practice, with television shows is to use the title card/logo that is most immediately associated with the series. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New Series??

What's all this talk of series one, two, three... whatever. Don't you mean "season"? Or is this a British term, "series"? In the US, a "series" is an entire new show. This is quite confusing in the article to refer to each new season as a series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertrose0601 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In the UK we say series instead of season. Pro66 (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And in Doctor Who, "seasons" are used to describe the "classic" show, but "series" is used for the revival. So "Season 1" refers to 1963, "Series One" to 2005. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Logo change

Should the logo that is currently on the page be kept, or should we use the old one until that logo is actually used in series 5? TR-BT (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion above at infobox picture (huh?) Edgepedia (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken link in text

In the table under Charaters,the link to Matt_Smith_(actor) is shown as Matt_Smith(actor) (note the missing underscore), causing the link to be red and broken. I sure won't remember to come back here, but thought i'd leave a note for someone to fix when the lock expires. best to all! 70.153.134.42 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring regarding new image

From what I can see, there is no consensus as to whether to change to the new logo, disputes over whether the logo should be treated as the version that will be used in a title sequence, and disagreement over whether it is appropriate to use it prior to Smith's series airing. furthermore, the edit notice that appears for this article specifically states:

"do not change the image in the infobox to the 11th Doctor / Matt Smith era logo (File:Doctor Who 2010 series logo.jpg) before it is used on the show"

As such, I have restored the previous version, and would ask that the edit warring stop until the matter is resolved here. Otherwise, the article may need to be temporarily protected to avoid disruption. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's another person changed it! I don't want to revert it because I think I'm almost at the three revert rule. But anyway, I think it would be for the best to protect the article in some way at the moment. Whoniverse93 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This (titlecard) issue seems to have taken up an inordinate amount of time to date. Might I suggest a compromise? Could the infobox display the old Series 1-4 image, and in the body below, perhaps in section 3.1 where Matt Smith is pictured? Just a suggestion, regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things:

If the page is going to be locked, I'm very, very tempted to suggest it be sans any logo/title card. At least until we hash out a consensus regarding which of the 10 or so logos to use. As noted above, I believe the consensus/practice with articles about TV shows is to use the one that is most immediately associated with the show. That may not be the current logo for a long running show, and except for brand new shows it won't be a promotional logo.
Putting the series 5 promotional logo into the article would be putting undue weight on it.

- J Greb (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Locking this page would not stop the image being changed, that can still be altered by uploading a new image into the logo's source page. magnius (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Locking

OK, enough of this nonsense. I've fully locked the article for a week for a consensus to emerge, which it will. If the above happens, I'll lock the image pages as well, AND block perpetrators. This is not how to behave. Rodhull andemu 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you should lock the image page now anyway. magnius (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out that the current image [File:DW-Logo-2010.png] has no non-free rationale? Edgepedia (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That shortens things; I warned the uploader yesterday not to replace it without consensus, or he would be blocked. Well, he did, and he is. However, it's still open to another editor to provide a FUR for it before it's speedily deleted; however, since it lacks valid copyright, I feel able to edit through my own protection to replace the image with valid copyright status. This may also affect the level and duration of protection, but I notice IP editors have also been edit-warring on this. Rodhull andemu 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On the front of the logo...

File:Doctor Who 2010 series logo.jpg - Uploaded Oct 9, 2009 16:46 by SoWhy - FURred, Liscenced, and in use - History of Doctor Who (I'm not going to comment on a validity of the use at this point.
File:DoctorWhoLogo2010.png - Uploaded Jan 2, 2010 18:09 by KitAlexHarrison - FURred w/o an actual source and licensed. Currently not in use and up for deletion as an orphan on the 13th.
File:DrWhologo.jpg - Uploaded Jan 5, 2010 14:44 by Podlover98 - FURred and licensed. Currently not in use and up for deletion as an orphan on the 13th.
File:DW-Logo-2010.png - Uploaded Jan 6, 2010 18:12 by Dannyboybaby1234 - Licensed, very shor description and source page provided. Currently not in use and up for deletion as an orphan on the 14th.

Now... I'm really tempted to just delete the later three now as redundant copis of a non-free image. I'll ask though - Is there a good reason to keep them around for a week?

- J Greb (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't have a problem with that except that WP:CSD#F1 only applies to "images in the same format". However, 3 and 4 are clearly duplicates in the same format as 1 & 2, so they could go. That leaves 2 as an orphaned copy of 1 albeit in a different format, and if 1 were to achieve consensus here, it would need an FUR for this article; however, I wouldn't see a problem with that, so I see no problem with keeping 1 and deleting the others. Rodhull andemu 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the two exact copies under WP:CSD#F1. Even though PNG and JPG are not technically the same, they are both raster formats, which I do consider to be the same in functionality. — Edokter • Talk • 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the current revision of the article: the title card dates from 2007, not 2005. The logo was recoloured in that year. --Kwekubo (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the new logo should be used, since all the BBC material related to the show, as well as the official magazine, have already switched over to the new logo, despite the new episodes not having yet aired. Essentially, that is the "current" identity of the programme. However, this is the logo, not the "title card" ... is there any kind of existing standard that suggests that only the "title card" be used to identify a TV series? If not, I see no reason to stick to that as a rule, simply because it's what was used previously. A title card could replace a logo once the first episode airs. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The new logo is used in both Doctor Who magazine's latest issue and Doctor Who Adventures latest issue. It is also on the BBC website. So I think that counts as in use. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Slight side question... but is the DWm article's infobox image update each month? Or was this a just a case of "New Doctor, New logo, gotta have it!" - J Greb (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)