Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject 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 20

←

Archive 23

→

Images Missing from Doctor Who Episode Pages 2005-current day

I have noticed there are a number of Doctor Who pages that do not have images the list is below I will tick them off as and when they are completed.

Fear Her
Daleks in ManhattanY
Evolution of the DaleksY
The Family of BloodY
Last of the Time LordsY
The Doctor's DaughterY
Silence in the LibraryY
Music of the Spheres
The Waters of MarsY
The Beast BelowY
The Time of AngelsY
Flesh and Stone
Amy's ChoiceY
Cold Blood Y
The Big BangY
A Christmas Carol
Space and Time
The Impossible AstronautY
Day of the Moon
The Curse of the Black Spot
The Rebel Flesh
The Almost People
A Good Man Goes to War

Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of attempts to add images to these articles, which have been undone because the image was soon deleted. If not an outright copyright violation, the deletion was usually because the image concerned failed to satisfy WP:NFCC. There have been discussions here (see #Doctor Who imgs) and elsewhere. It appears that you need a cast-iron fair-use rationale, otherwise you're wasting your time. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Images Missing from Torchwood Episode Pages

I have noticed there are a number of Torchwood episode pages that do not have images the list is below I will tick them off as and when they are completed.

Everything Changes
Ghost Machin
Countrycide
They Keep Killing Suzie
Random Shoes
Out of Time
Combat
Captain Jack Harkness
To the Last Man
Dead Man Walking
The New WorldY

Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Images missing from the classic series

Well this is a remarkable coincidence. I have been keeping a list of missing pics in infoboxes as I make my way through the classic serial articles. I am not completely finished so I may add a couple in the next few days. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

infobox pics needed

Frontios
Terror of the Zygons this does have a pic of the Skarasen and that is fine. I just wonder if a pic of a Zygon might not serve the article better.
Frontier in Space One with a Draconian or one with an Ogron would be great
Last of the Time Lords I know this one is mentioned above but I just want to add that I think there have been at least 4 different pics here. Hopefully you all will be able to put in one that stays.

captions needing copyediting

These articles have pics but I thought that the captions for those pics could use some copy editing. Now this is just one editors opinion so if you are happy with the captions that is fine with me. My thanks ahead of time for your taking a look at these. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ghost Light (Doctor Who) might need a new caption if anyone knows what part of the story it is from and what is going on
Silver Nemesis ditto
The Smugglers ditto again
The Two Doctors a 3rd time
The Massacre of St Bartholomew's Eve and a fourth
Dragonfire (Doctor Who) run on sentence might need shortening Y
The Awakening (Doctor Who) might need shortening also pic is fairly blurry. It appears the person who wrote this originally wanted to identify each character in the caption; don't know if that's the norm and/or desirable, but removing the IDs is the easiest way to shorten it. Alternatively, perhaps adding a directional note to the caption will make it more clear.
Warriors' Gate seems a bit confusing even after reading the plot section Yeah, I got nothing on this one.
The Sun Makers Cute phrase but is the pic from this moment
The Space Pirates looks more like he is having tea than receiving a call.

I don't know the others well enough to comment and/or make the requested changes, though looking at the last one, unless that huge CALL placard behind the gentleman is what the caption is referring to, then I agree with you. --Sherlockspock (talk)

Thanks for taking the time to work on these. Your efforts are appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome; always happy to answer a call for copyediting. I just wish I knew more about the Classic series so I could be of more service. --Sherlockspock (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Torchwood India Picture

Should we have a picture of Torchwood India on the Torchwood Institute article i could only find 2 pictures but they are from the BBC would fair use be ok for this purpose to illustrate what Torchwood India look like the link are below let me know what you think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00lg4nq_640_360.jpg

http://www.bbcshop.com/Science-Fiction/Torchwood-The-Golden-Age/invt/9781408426654&temp=enlarged&layout=empty

Sfxprefects (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Doctor who/related images that are on deletion list

Audio Format

It says the main Doctor Who page that that audio format is was Monaural (1963 - 1987) and Stereo (1983; 1988-present) I am pretty sure that the current Audio format is Dolby Digital Surround sound not sure if it is 5.1 or not but it does come up when it broadcast in HD on my amplifier that it is Dolby Digital Surround sound. Sfxprefects (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Series 5/The Beast Below: Lead Section Expansion

Not sure where I go to tell someone I've worked on this, but on the above article, there was a box indicating that the lead didn't summarize the article sufficiently and that it should be expanded upon. I've given this my best go, using the lead for Turn Left, as this has Good Article status. But I don't know how to remove the box, and besides, I think I should get some feedback before I go ahead and assume what I've done is enough, and acceptable enough, to warrant removal of the box.

Also occurs to me I should put this on the Discussion page for the article, so I'll do that as well, but feedback on the work I've done is not only solicited, but much appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Sherlockspock (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To remove any notice you remove the code at the top of the page or section--in this case {{tooshort|date=April 2010}}. I've taken care of it. Good work! Glimmer721 ^talk 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, btw :) Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Glimmer and Sceptre, for both the info and the compliments. It helps to know I'm doing OK so far, as that bolsters my confidence to do more. And now that I know where the code lives, I'll be able to find it in the future. I've also been putting these pages on my Watchlist, so I can see if/when edits I've made are changed, and that way learn where I might be going wrong.

Thanks again. --Sherlockspock (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Image

Okay. I would like to upload an image for the article of "Amy's Choice" which I am working on, and I was thinking of something somewhere along the line of this because it illustrates the key element of falling asleep; the scenes filmed in Skenfrith; and the aged Amy and Rory. However, I know that it will have to have a very good Fair-use rationale or it will be deleted, and I'm not sure how to construct one worthy enough. Can anyone give me some tips? Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 21:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best image to use would be the reflection of the Dream Lord in the Doctor's TARDIS with both Doctor and Dream Lord visible (if it exists; I haven't seen the episode since first transmission). I think a good rationale could be written how that symbolises a "core idea" of the episode, especially if out-of-universe focus (i.e., the writing) was put on that duality. We don't need to be wary of spoilers as they don't exist from an article writing perspective; The Stolen Earth has a massive spoiler in its infobox. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in the episode the reflection of the Doctor morphed into the Dream Lord (see end of this). I don't remember it showing both of them at the same time, unfortunately. Any other suggestions? Glimmer721 ^talk 18:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the image editors are suggesting that we should first look at the article itself and ask what in the article cannot be explained with words then ask if there is a picture that can show the unexplainable. That is, it shouldn't be a summary of the article (which the above two suggested images are) but a tool that's used within the article (like a chart or schematic, for example). DonQuixote (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

... well, not from Professor Farnsworth admittedly - but see The Doctor Who Restoration Team front page - the message "Normal service will resume shortly!" has gone up very recently (certainly since 19:05 31 July 2011). Thanks to this IP edit for alerting me. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sfxprefects (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Torchwood International Broadcasts Section a mess

Can any make sense on this section on the main Torchwood Page its called International Broadcasts International broadcasts and syndication and it is a mess it need to be cleaned up and additional references i have just finished adding all the references to the DVD/Blu-ray section. Sfxprefects (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Trial of Davros up for deletion

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trial of Davros. Now, rather than swarming over and blindly !voting keep, it would be great if we could find some more sources to establish notability. If anyone has access to old issues of DWM (mine are in storage, alas) there was probably coverage there, to start with. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Images for deletion please leave your comments on the Discussion page

File:DW S4.8 Silence In The Library.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion
File:S5.4 The Time of Angels.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion
File:S5.13 The Big Bang.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion
File:DW S5.9 Cold Blood.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion

Sfxprefects (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As I put on your talk page, it is neither required nor necessary nor appropriate for every episode article of any TV show (not just Doctor Who and its spinoffs) to have an image in the infobox. These images must clearly pass WP:NFCC, particularly the inability to replace them by free text and other existing non-free media (#1), and when they do little to aid in the reader's understanding of the importance of the work (#8). If there is no sourced discussion of any specific visual aspect of the show, then there is likely no need for any image of the show. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Elisabeth Sladen

Does anyone have any ideas where you would find a reference for this "Sladen was the only child of Tom Sladen, who fought in World War I and served in the Home Guard during World War II." it is on the Elizabeth Sladen article it was left by 80.195.213.52 which isn't much help becuase they haven't been active in a while so i can't ask them were they read this to reference it anyone have any ideas? Sfxprefects (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Iris Wildthyme

Just a heads up I see a lot of deadwood articles around this character, lots of stubs that have a single primary source - I think mergers and AFDs have to occur. If anyone had any decent sources for this stuff, now is the time to start adding them to articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Series 7

Despite the media storm-in-a-teacup surrounding it, has Steven Moffat actually contradicted anything that was previously known in with these comments? He says that there is no reduced episode count, but the next series will be airing later. We already knew this. He says that "we are airing in 2012", but does not assert that the series will not run into 2013. This does not contradict the earlier announcement. And, considering the earlier BBC source, I'd consider it correct to continue to give series 7 the "2012-2013" parameter at List of Doctor Who serials. U-Mos (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He's said this before (reported here in French). Do we need a date at all for series 7 while we have lack of clarity? Edgepedia (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd still say there isn't total clarity in "next year" (filming or broadcast-wise, or just meaning in next year's series?). At any rate, the paragraph at the moment still needs tidying up in terms of its implication that Moffat has directly contradicted Cohen with this latest interview, when what he has contradicted are the assumations that 2012 will run along the same lines as 2009 for Doctor Who. U-Mos (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See next week's Radio Times (dated 27 Aug-2 Sept 2011), p. 15 "... the next series of Doctor Who will again be split in two with some episodes screened in 2012 and others in 2013". --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the article so it's a) less OR, b) less sensationalist and c) more concise. U-Mos (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Radio Times website

It looks like Radio Times has redesigned their website, and most of the links to past reviews don't work. I've tried the Wayback machine, Google, and searching the Doctor Who portal on the new website, but the news feed only goes as far as to encompass the episodes in Sereis 6 (so far). So are they just floating in Cyberspace somewhere? Or are they hidden on the new website somewhere? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think this is important. Contents from the old RT site can be found by replacing the "www." with "old.", eg. for the review linked to above. I don't believe they are on the new website, as the new episode page contains no review. They may be uploaded in due course, but we can't count on that. Listings on the old site are being updated until September 30, so I assume the site will also go down on that date. So is it possible for someone with the know-how to archive all the reviews that are used before they're lost? Also, is this something to bring to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television as a whole? U-Mos (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The only way I know how to archive things are through WebCite which I've never tried before. I think I'm going to archive everything I can related to Doctor Who to that and catalog them on a subpage of mine (User:Glimmer721/RadioTimesDW). I'd also notify WikiProject TV and Film as well. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Before you do that manually, maybe it can be done by a bot? User:WebCiteBOT is no longer active but Tim1357 is currently trying to get User:DASHBot to duplicate that task (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot WebCite). You might want to contact him and ask whether he can do a manual run for those links. Regards So Why 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how the bot works, and I sort of have a system down. It really doesn't take that long and I don't mind doing it. I should be able to get back on track tomorrow. I'll check out the bot more in depth tomorrow, but as for now that may be a good thing to notify WikiProject TV about. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the way WebCiteBOT worked, by checking refs and WebCiting any URL not removed 24h after addition. Tim's replacement is not active but judging from the request he has the code to do such runs and he might be able to do a run for all Radio Times links. After all, it's not only the WebCiting that's needed but all those refs need to be replaced now (with old. instead of www.) and the WebCite added to the ref. Of course you can ado all that manually but I think it's probably a really huge task to do it that way. On a side note, I left a note for WP:TV to this discussion. Regards So Why 22:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I've got a question now. I've noticed that as articles are added to the main Doctor Who page on the redesigned site, older articles disappear off the end. They're not tagged in a blog like the old site, so where do they go? Are they retrievable? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, actually, this seems to hold them. But only the ones filed under the blog, which is not everything on the front page. Hmmm... Glimmer721 ^talk 22:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Borusa AfD

An AfD relevant to the project has been open for a week now. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borusa. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy and Rory photos

Are the new photos for Amy Pond and Rory Williams OK for fair use? I'm not sure if promo shots can be used here that way. Help? --Ebyabe (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not an expert on this at all, but I think promo images are okay because they're used in the Torchwood character articles (Jack Harkness and Ianto Jones are GA). They could possibly be cropped, though. Glimmer721 ^talk 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

They are okay if they are the only way to illustrate the actor in character (since such images are almost always copyrighted). That said, they are not okay for Amy Pond because File:Amy Pond.jpg is a cc-by-sa licensed free image and the promo is a copyrighted image. WP:NFCC#1 forbids the use of copyrighted images if a free equivalent exists. As for Rory, it's okay to use a promo but I don't think it's the best choice. Unlike Jack's and Ianto's pictures, Rory's promo looks imho really faked and the previous version was much more useful to achieve the goal of showing him in character. I'd suggest we revert it back or at least use a still from an episode instead. Regards So Why 16:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought the older picture of Rory was more in character, too. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this so bloody complicated? There have been two lengthy discussions on this at Talk:Amy Pond, and both concluded that, since we have a free image of Amy, no promo image is acceptable, as per NFCC 1. Yet still, every couple of months, someone tries to re-open the issue. Why oh why? ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A new hi-res Rory Williams photo has been uploaded over the old lo-res version, again. I re-uploaded the old eversion, but the new one was re-re-uploaded. I don't want to get into an edit war, and now am not sure the new version might not be better. Could other eyes take a look, please? Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted has the new image was too high resolution, and leave a note on the user's talk page [1]. Had reverted the same user yesterday replacing the Amy Pond image. Edgepedia (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Classic Who gone from Youtube then?

It looks like it. They were there last year when I watched a few stories to get me through a cold. Checking the link again after another dose http://www.youtube.com/show/drwho?s=21 (sorry about the bare link, I'm typing this on a phone) the episode pages are there but the videos appear to be unavailable. I think they were used on a few articles, but gradually seem to be edited out. Just incase anyone else wondered where they were WikiuserNI (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyediting Questions

Hi all,

I'm kind of new to consistent Wikipedia editing, and particularly editing a subject that is taken very, very seriously, but I'd like to undertake getting more copyediting consistency in Doctor Who articles.

Here's my pitch: I have this weird quirk of nature where I automatically proof anything I read, and correct errors where I find them (mentally, if I can't do it physically). As I'm new to the Whoniverse - I only started watching when Matt Smith took on the role, and so far am mostly familiar only with the new series - I've found myself wanting to learn more about things referred to in the series that have a history beyond that which I know. So I've started reading the articles available on Wikipedia, and have discovered that there is a decided lack of copyediting consistency for recurring terms across the articles. To mention but one that I've noticed, the TARDIS's Chameleon Circuit is sometimes notated as a proper name, at other times as just a noun, and at others with an incomprehensible mix of upper and lower case.

What I'd like to do is look for a consensus of opinion on how items like this should be notated across the Doctor Who articles; then, as I read them, I will endeavour to edit recurring terms so they are consistent. Here are a few of the terms I've noticed; this is, of course, far from an exhaustive list, and I'd appreciate suggestions for additions from more experience hands.

Doctor Who Terms

Chameleon Circuit
Christmas Specials
TARDIS's (possessive; going by the ending of the base word, instead of the acronym)
Revived series when referred to in the body of an article. As an example, "River Song, not seen since the _series 4_ two-part episode 'Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead'..."
Chameleon Arch

BTW, I'm not looking to make changes to article text for the most part. I don't know enough about most of Doctor Who to be able to determine what is or isn't trivia, what should or shouldn't be included, or how to edit down a summary that's been designated too long; I'm just going to copyedit. I will attempt some actual writing on the Eleventh Doctor's series; I know those well enough that I feel comfortable trying to make some of the changes that are needed, based on what the boxes at the top of the articles say need doing. I state this because I see there is an editor named MarnetteD who is working on removing trivia, and I want to make clear that I don't see our efforts overlapping or conflicting. Also, once a consensus is reached on notation, may I be so bold as to suggest that these be added to the Doctor Who Manual of Style? Because honestly, when I noticed this issue, I checked both the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the Doctor Who Manual of Style, and didn't find a solution for the majority of this, the differences between notating series, serials and seasons excepted.

I look forward to a lively discussion. --Sherlockspock (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These are areas not fully covered at WP:WHO/MOS. Sherlockspock has previously asked me on my talk page, and I suggested that by asking here she'd get a wider audience. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentle correction: he's a she. Not clear from my username, I know. --Sherlockspock (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that: I should have used the {{GENDER}} magic word. Have suitably amended my comment above. I occasionally get mistaken for the wrong one, possibly because my own preferences show that I'm an "unspecified". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :-) In fact, it's completely understandable, considering my username is built on two male characters. There's a long, long story behind the choice; suffice it to say that it's four down on my list of usernames, and rarely do I get beyond #3, which almost always gets rejected for supposed obscenity rather than already being in use.

I suppose, since I'm becoming more active, I should probably flesh out my profile. At the very least, that will eliminate confusion. --Sherlockspock (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: what about BBC One vs BBC1? Shouldn't BBC One be used as it's more formal? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how the BBC writes it, IMO. If one was going strictly according to grammar, then it would be BBC One; however, when it comes to company names or titles, I was always taught to notate it according to original usage. A quick Google brought up the Web site, indicating it's BBC One. --Sherlockspock (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only been "BBC One" in recent years, changing from "BBC1" at some point between 1997 and 2002. Therefore, almost all Classic era stories went out on BBC1, all New Series on BBC One. The very earliest Classic era stories went out on "BBC tv" (see here), as the station was then known, because the "BBC1" branding wasn't introduced until the launch of BBC2 in 1964. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that research, Redrose; I'll keep that in mind when I get underway with the Classic Series. To get a better feel for things, I've started with the New Series, as that's the one I'm more familiar with; figured that's the best way to learn the overall ropes. It will also hopefully give people more time to comment on what I've already set forth, and to bring up new things, such as the BBC1/BBC One naming convention. --Sherlockspock (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as upper case goes: I could see all three being lower case. "Christmas special" is the most obvious one, as it's a truncated form of "Christmas special episode". As far as items in the show go? I've always thought of it in lower case unless I can find, say, a BBC source that unambiguously does it the other way; e.g. "vortex manipulator", "chameleon arch", but "ATMOS System", "the Pandorica". Sceptre ^(talk) 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Sceptre. Now that I've begun actually watching the Classic Series, your take on these things makes more sense to me. I'd only ever known a universe where there was one Time Lord and one TARDIS; now that I've become acquainted with a universe where there are a number of both, it's become apparent these are not proper names but nouns.

I know one person's input, and my agreement, could hardly be considered a consensus, but as this doesn't seem to have garnered much interest, and given the logic of this solution, I hope that - as I'm going to be jumping back into this again now - running with these terms as nouns instead of proper names is OK.Sherlockspock (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuity sections

I know there has been discussions about these in the past, but when these start to rival the size of a well-trimmed plot section (like "The End of Time" or "Let's Kill Hitler", we have a problem; info like this is great at Wikia, but not on WP.

I'm not saying we wipe these, but we need to focus these on truly obvious statements - particularly those that relate the Old vs New series - that are understandable by those that aren't avid fans, and those commented by third-parties (which reviews from, say, AV Club, will often do). Every single nod to the past, however, is not necessary. "Oh, this character said the words "Doctor Who?" - it must be noted" can't fly.

Particularly in the new series, there are likely several details that can be tossed to the running plots page. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In addtion to the above, the project needs to go through all the new series articles and see where someone has put in the continuity section a reference to a future episode which I have seen frequently of late. Wikipedia is not spolier are us. And another example is putting in things in the section which is not continuity. For example on the fires of pomp ep, I removed someone putting in with an IMDB source, take or leave on that one, about Karen Gillien being in the ep as continuity. :facepalm: it is not continuity! Globalwheels (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that goes more with casting. She's not playing the same character. It's a littl different with Freema Agyeman because Adeola was Martha's cousin. Another thing we should do is weed out the bullet points. Continuity is a big hard for me to edit, so I've started with smaller sections (like what I did with the Continuity in The Rebel Flesh). Glimmer721 ^talk 22:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the new series articles where this editor has added references to future episodes - he's done it in the Classic series too (example). It is never sourced, and usually a violation of WP:NOR. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some possible cases where a future episode should be noted in a past one. Specific case in mind is the Doctor/Amy scene in "Flesh and Stone" which at least one RS called out as "heeeeey, that's strange", and later proven right by a later episode. But again, this started with the fact that some source deemed it important, avoiding the OR aspect. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer is to never use your own judgement what is a continuity issue. Only report that which is in a cited source. So, for example, if Davies or Gillan gave an interview where they talked about a continuity point, or a Guardian reviewer caught one, then by all means mention it in a more appropriate section such as "Writing", "Development", "Casting" or even "Reception". "Continuity" sections shouldn't exist because they don't provide encyclopedic information accessible to the unacquainted, but rather, mere trivia for fans.Zythe (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Great Pond Debate

Could I ask for people to weigh in at Talk:Amy Pond#Real vs flesh please? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Torchwood needs an update

I just came across Criticism of Torchwood, and found that, except for a few mentions of ratings, it seems to have nothing beyond series 1. If it isn't updated, it perhaps could be merged to one of the other Torchwood articles. Barsoomian (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and redirected it to Torchwood. It does not need its own article. U-Mos (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I extracted the "Parodies" section and pasted that into the main article, and removed it from the Torchwood navbox. Barsoomian (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work. For posterity (as I forgot to do before), here's the final version of the article in case anyone wants to take anything from it and put it into other Torchwood articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Torchwood&oldid=438900331. U-Mos (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Do companions have numbers?

We're familiar with terms like "Fourth Doctor Who", etc; but are companions numbered in any reliable sources? In the last couple of days I've noticed them sprouting succession boxes like this. Does this violate WP:NOR? A related matter is that of just who succeeded who. It's pretty well known (and, I'm sure verifiable) that Vicki replaced Susan; but did Steven (for example) replace Ian, or both Barbara & Ian? Was he replaced by Ben, or both Ben & Polly? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy... Small list here...

Enumerated companions are limited, I believe, to Romana and K-9. And neither of those articles should be split by regeneration or build model.
The succession box should definitely not be used in this way.
The navboxes here do the job of tracking/showing the companions coming and going.
Assigning a "pecking order" is either arbitrary or OR.
Noting that, due to an actor issue, a character is either written out and replaced with a similar character or a stand-in actor holds the role is fin, if there is a reliable source to support it. And in general it also requires a section dealing with real world context of the character.

- J Greb (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I may have given the impression that I am all in favour of these succ boxes. I definitely want to remove the "nth companion" thing, but in fact, I was always tending towards "strip them out completely", and wanted to be sure that I wouldn't be reverted "oh no you don't, these are useful". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I second both of your sentiments about this. Funny how fast things change around here. Succession boxes (all the rage 4 or 5 years ago) seem almost quaint now. Aside from the OR and POV problems with these specific ones - navboxes give scope for greater detail and fuller information. I would concur with their removal whenever possible. MarnetteD | Talk 21:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing to consider - they are redundant to the "Companions navboxes" that are already attached to the articles in question. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment:Although numbers are not per se wrong (for example, there is no doubt that Susan was the first), there is no reason to have them as succession boxes - the navboxes fulfill the job much better. Regards So Why 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the boxes in question. The editor was certainly enthusiastic. While there is nothing wrong with that the criteria used was, at times, subjective. The box for Harry Sullivan had him as the successor to Jamie and being replaced by K-9. The IP goes to a school. There are plenty of warnings on the talk page meant for other students but this person probably just needs some guidance on editing here. If they return perhaps they could be directed to this conversation or at least have it explained that succession boxes have been supplanted by navboxes. MarnetteD | Talk 21:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lede should introduce the Doctor & companions

My recent edit here and others like it have been mass-reverted by another editor. Per WP:LEDE, whcih says:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points

I don't think we should have articles which blithely start referring to "the Doctor, Amy and Rory", or suchlike, without saying who they are. We'e not writing for the series' existing fans; we should consider readers reading such articles, with no prior knowledge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is why links such as Doctor Who and Series 6 are in the lead, where the setting of the series as a whole are better explained. — Edokter (talk) — 21:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requiring the user to follow such links does not satisfy the part of the MoS quoted above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

By the same logic, we would need to explain that Doctor is a long-running television program that involves actors and is broadcasted over the airwaves via electromagnetic transmissions.... There is a point in summarizing a lead where we need to assume a certain level of knowledge with wikilinks to providing supplementary info for those that do need that. In the case of Doctor Who episodes, we can presume the reader understands who the Doctor is and the like. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not the same logic; and no, we cannot presume anything of the kind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If you're going to add that kind of info, you might as well start at the beginning if you're going to do that. Current viewers of the show are less likely to know who Susan is than Amy. --Ebyabe (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Did I suggest saying who Susan is? No; because that would be silly. Please avoid straw man arguments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in a properly formed lead section in a completely expanded article, one paragraph would include a short synopsis (~60 words) including "the Doctor (Matt Smith) and his companions Amy Pond (Karen Gillan) and Rory Williams (Arthur Darvill)". In any case, all three characters and their actors need to be linked on their first use. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite; so how do we resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This was my rationale in writing the lead for River Song, as it required glossing who the Doctor is, what he is, who Amy and Rory are, etc. etc. In episode write-ups, a fairly quick gloss can work though—the Doctor is our hero, and the companions are our supporting heroes. I think a useful change to episodes would be to classify Doctor Who, generically, as "time travel science fiction", thus automatically allowing a reader of an episode article to infer that these characters are time travellers.Zythe (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Where would the Three Families & The Blessing (from Torchwood Season 4) go under...?

in relation to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens or List of Torchwood characters--S G Command 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Blessing is hardly a character, so I would say List of Torchwood items. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Would anybody object if I put the Blessing under List of Torchwood items & Three Families under List of Torchwood characters???--S G Command 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The families is a collection /group rather than a single character. I wouldn't put it under that. Globalwheels (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If modern reviews of old Who episodes are helpful to anyone

The AV Club are reviewing episodes of "classic" Doctor Who alongside the current episodes in their TV Club. It might be useful for bolstering episode reception sections. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A few questions

Hello, I've been working on and off on the article for the episode "Amy's Choice" and I think it has come close to GA, but I do have some questions to ask before I feel confident to submit it.

How do I go about referencing the "Continuity" section? Is the Valeyard comparison really continuity? Is there a mention anywhere of the Doctor failing at being a vegitarian, or is that just an inference and therefore WP:OR?
Is the "Filming and effects" section too short?
Should the "Cast notes" section be combined with something else? If so, what?
Should I add a (free) image? If so, where would be a good spot?

Thank you if you decide to input or comment. I've been working hard to add references and reception to many Doctor Who episode pages and have finally decided to settle down and decide to work with on to get it to GA, so this is my first attept at promoting any TV-related article to GA-class (my previous promotions were of the books Chasing Vermeer and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, so this is totally new ground). Glimmer721 ^talk 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That said, the article's structure is fine. However, I would suggest editing the synopsis in the lead section to reflect who exactly the Dream Lord is; if a comprehensive summary of the episode's plot would include a spoiler, then you should spoil (see: The Stolen Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). And from that, you can try and find a screenshot that accurately conveys the conflict between the Dream Lord and the Doctor, as that would have a better fair use rationale. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote that summary in the lead quick and will expand it to include more info and the ending. By the way, I've completed the archive of RadioTimes pages and it contains a lot of valuable articles, interviews, and reviews you may be interested in. Glimmer721 ^talk 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The God Complex

The events of the story are leading to changes in companion status being made to the Amy and Rory articles. I reverted them, because I think we should wait until the end of the season (yeah, I know, I'm a Yank). Karen Gillan has signed on for next year, for one thing. I wanted to bring it up here, though, since I see the potential for edit-warring on the articles due to what happened. Thanks, folks. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just removed an (unsourced) addition that says Gillan is leaving her contract this year. A quick look at the Googles doesn't confirm this, only rumours. --Ebyabe (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

FACEPALM and a big SLAP for anyone saying that the story is over. It's Doctor Who, LOL! Wouldn't worry too much about edit warring. Globalwheels (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If it keeps up, the quartet can be semi-ed. - J Greb (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Also insane are the changes being made to Closing Time (Doctor Who), contrary to a sourced cast list from the Radio Times and, if it really needs further citing, the BBC's press release (even including removing River from the cast list?!). Even if these inclusions do turn out to be a ruse to cover up the ending to The God Complex, we can't go ignoring reliable sources on the basis of in-universe narrative and a hunch. Right? U-Mos (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There's not much to discuss, is there? There are no reliable sources whatsoever that say that Amy's and Rory's status changed, despite the apparent events on screen, so anyone making such edits should get a {{trout}} and be reverted. I agree with J Greb that protection might be required since most of those edits are from anonymous or new editors unfamiliar with our policies. Regards So Why 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a WP:BOLD edit and moved the two of them from companions to others, as on thinking about it the events of The God Complex do give reasonable doubt that they will be companions in the next episode. River, on the other hand, is not affected by those events and it has been agreed at length that she's a companion by default in series 6. U-Mos (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I reverted your edit. Regardless what happened on the show, the only reason to change the status should be that a reliable source says that the status has indeed changed. There are no such sources whatsoever, so there is no reason to change it. For example, we had a huge discussion about whether Astrid Perth is a companion and many argued that she wasn't because she never had that status on-screen, yet we treat her as such because that is what the sources say she was. I know many people, including myself, find it hard to ignore the show's story when deciding what to add, remove or edit but there are no exceptions for really cool British sci-fi shows, so we have to apply the same rules. In this case, WP:V. Regards So Why 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it after having a think about the situation, is that when the narrative appears to show the end of their tenure as companions we would need to have a reliable source to confirm that they *are* still companions. If I had to place a bet I'd say they will be companions again for at the very least "The Wedding of River Song", but as far as we know they will never appear as such again. So I didn't feel comfortable with having them up there as current companions, when there is no source to say that they are. ~~And at any rate, even if they are companions in "Closing Time", can we really say that they are "current companions" right now? I don't think so.~~ U-Mos (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an in-universe view of the problem, isn't it? We do have plenty of sources that say they are companions for the 6th series and we have none that say that they are not for the last two episodes. Saying that we need a source that says that they are still companions is like saying "I think the reliable sources are all wrong until you show me another source that confirms it for this particular instance". That's not how Wikipedia works normally. If you think something is incorrect but is backed up by reliable sources, you need to demonstrate that those sources are incorrect. Regards So Why 21:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is, but it's only a minor situation until the next episode is broadcast and my view clearly isn't held be the consensus so I don't really have any issue here. U-Mos (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment, but remember what happened with Teagan. She appeared to leave the show at the end of Time-Flight but reappeared the next season. So what seems to happen within the narrative can be misleading. DonQuixote (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And if that was happening at the end of a series now, would we not require a source that her role as a companion was continuing? U-Mos (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Which we have. As mentioned above we have statements that they will be companions in series 6 and 7, there is no source that says that they won't continue to be companions in any of their appearances. DonQuixote (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well there's certainly no source for them being companions in series 7, if anything the digitalspy report suggests they might not be. As for series 6, the production of Who is now so secretive we have never even had confirmation of how many episodes they're in, let alone that they're companions for the whole series. Their status as on-going characters is therefore unknown, and not covered by any sources. As we know they're in the next two episodes (as the core cast has now been confirmed for ep 13 here) I, as I said, don't really have a problem with leaving them there, but let's be clear about this: we can assume characters are going to be companions without explicit citation if they have been established to fulfil the role in an on-going capacity and there's no reason to doubt that this role will continue in the episode in question. The narrative of "The God Complex" supplies very reasonable doubt that they will appear as companions again, so although we know they will both appear in at least three further episodes I consider it WP:OR to assert they will be companions in these appearances (if we want to cite earlier precedent, Adric appeared briefly in the episode after his shock exit so the Radio Times listing wouldn't imply he'd left). U-Mos (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected on series 7 (don't really follow the news that much), but they have been stated as being companions for series 6. Changing their "status" based on the narrative rather than sources is original research. And you're right about Adric, but to assume the same for Amy and Rory is a little WP:CRYSTAL. After Adric left the show, it was mentioned in secondary sources that Earthshock was his last serial. If and when such a thing occurs with Amy and Rory, then the sources will come out and we can rely on them as is the case with Adric. If it doesn't, then it's probably like what happened with Tegan. So, my point is wait for the sources before we change the current "status". DonQuixote (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for a second suggesting that narrative implication trumps reliable secondary sources, but in terms of this there is no other source specifically dealing with their status past "The God Complex". Particularly with them confirmed as appearing in both the remaining episodes of the series, I totally understand keeping them in the infobox (although if it were totally up to me I wouldn't have them there until "Closing Time" was broadcast), but stand by the current iterations of Closing Time (Doctor Who) and Companion (Doctor Who) until the next episode has broadcast. U-Mos (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources say "They will be companions in series 6" and they say "CT and TWORS are episodes of series 6", so its valid to say "they will be companions in CT and TWORS" based on those sources. What you are claiming in fact is "They won't be companions after TGC", so you need to prove this claim. Regards So Why 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to U-mos)I'm not saying that that's what you're suggesting. I'm saying that we should be careful when using the narrative, especially since we don't know what exactly is going to happen in the next episode. Adric--20/20 hindsight. Tegan--20/20 hindsight. Amy and Rory after the mid-season finale--20/20 hindsight. Closing Time...WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. DonQuixote (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who story title debate

I've nominated this article, which I consider to be pretty shocking, for deletion. Take a look. U-Mos (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be an attempt to bring together a couple of instances and present it as some sort of coherent issue. I've backed the deletion on the grounds that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources outside of discussion of the story itself and therefore fails under GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Although we probably can't keep the article as is there are a few things to consider. A) Its been here a long time - I know that isn't a reason to keep it but that leads to B) There are several articles that link to it because of the evolution of the serials names. C) Pixley's article that is linked to in the EL section is well researched and is used by both print and web writers to explain all that went on in the determination of how we and the Beeb refer to the serials in question today. In addition to this I just got to see the 1972 Blue Peter segment that is an extra on the Day of the Daleks DVD and Peter Purves' refers to his favourite story as being the 12 part adventure called The Devil's Planet which was the title for episode three of the serial that we refer to today as the The Dalek Masterplan. This is a good example of why an article about the story title discrepancies is useful and worthy of inclusion here as some viewers of that segment will come to WikiP to find out why he used a title that they haven't heard of before. If the article was improved and moved away from the "fan debate" aspect it would be helpful for those readers who aren't steeped in Dr Who lore (naturally I pity their not being properly addicted to our fave) as to the title eccentricities. Does anyone know of an article that it might be merged into so that we don't entirely lose the useful info? Please note I am posting this at the AFD also. I hope that others will add their yeas or nays there. MarnetteD | Talk 02:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a good enough fair use rational for images Doctor Who/Torchwood/The Sarah Jane Adventures

If you have any suggestions on how to make it a watertight rational so we can keep all images then please feel free to comment under this line. Sfxprefects (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"The image provides critical commentary in describing a key moment in the said episode."

I think a lot of image editors will have an issue with that, particularly since "critical commentary" needs to be image/article-specific. DonQuixote (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free media information and use rationale true for Invasion of the Bane
Description	The Bane eat her spawn.
Source	Screen capture of "Invasion of the Bane"
Article	Invasion of the Bane
Portion used	1 frame of 60 minutes
Low resolution?	529x294 pixels; conforming to WP:WHO
Purpose of use	In "Invasion of the Bane" To illustrate a key element of the episode, and the appearance of the Bane.
Replaceable?	None; TV screenshot.
Other information	Fair use rationale The above image is believed to qualify as fair use as it is an image of: a web resolution, and of a lower quality then broadcast/verbatim media releases. The image provides critical commentary in describing a key moment in the said episode. Furthermore it is believed that this image will not impede the copyright owners' ability to profit.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Invasion of the Bane//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_25true

Infobox images for episodes are neither required or necessary. In fact, the project should avoid adding them unless they significant convey something about the episode at hand beyond what text can do alone. Otherwise, they will be challenged at FFD and likely deleted. There are likely several old series screenshots that should ultimately be removed in light of NFCC. To that end, you should not try to create a standard rationale to use because each use of a screenshot is unique and needs to be developed specific to the article its used in. --MASEM (t) 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been gnawing on this comment for a few days and keep coming back to the same thing: It's a fair argument for the removal of the image field from all episode infoboxes. The only problem is that it this isn't the place to make it. WT:TV may be, but 39 other Projects, Task Forces, and Workgroups, this one included, that would need notification and participation in the discussion.

In lieu of that, there is an assumption that some sort of visual identification of an episode is expected and a consensus in practice that a still from the episode is acceptable for that purpose if the the image is properly documented. Yes, that means the overall perception is that such an image meets the subjective aspect of WP:NFCC#8 and a source, copyright tag, and FUR must be present on the file page (NFCC#10).

And as far as the FUR goes... Yes, each use is unique. And yes, each page the image is used on must be listed. But similar uses can use similar or the same succinct reason.

- J Greb (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the assumption that there is allowance for an image per episode is wrong: MOS:TV specifically counters this. There are allowances when there is sourced commentary and/or discussion of the image, but not just to support plot. --17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

Seems this guy is on a mission. He's got another deletion on the go here for The Girl Who Waited. Anybody any comments to add?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If infobox images for episodes are neither required or necessary, then why is there a parameter for them in the infobox? Maybe that parameter should be removed, then the problem would be solved. Sorry, that was me being sarcastic. I believe pictures actually improve articles, and wish the efforts made to delete them would be put into finding ones that could be kept. I'm not going to say anymore right now, because this is one of the rare subjects that really upsets me. I hope things can be worked out. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Being neither required or necessary doesn't mean they aren't forbidden. I think the one at Vincent and the Doctor is universally accepted as appropriate since it shows how well they picked their actor to match Van Gogh, with his appearance and subsequent acting commented on heavily by critics. But more technical, I believe that the image parameter does extend from the core infobox template that all infoboxes use as to standardize their look and feel.

The problem that we need to remember is that Wikipedia is a free content work which allows for exceptions for non-free content when it is believed to be necessary to include to help the reader understand the topic and no other free content equivalent exists. A screenshot from a live-action TV show is not universally this case: if its just actors standing around with no makeup or the like, free pictures and text can always replace that. (Most of the images TT tagged as mentioned below fall into this category). WP is not against the use of screenshots in episode articles, but their use really needs to be necessary, and not just "to help identify the episode" or "illustrate a specific plot point". --MASEM (t) 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just tagged about 20 images uploaded by Sfxprefects (talk · contribs) for deletion. This is the second or third time I've had to do such a sweep. Several of the images are more-or-less identical to the ones previously deleted. This is getting close to being either a WP:DE or a WP:CIR issue; I can't tell which. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 08:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh get on with it then. I won't bother trying to improve articles and will just get on with my life (since I do actually have one). Sad really.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting merging the creature/alien lists

Hi there. After the last discussion last year ended without any clear consensus, I would propose that we revisit the proposal to merge

into one article, possible titled

(with no objection to splitting the newly merged article (A-F), (G-L) etc. if necessary)

No only would that allow us to avoid duplication of information but that way all information of creatures/aliens of the same universe would be in the same place. For example, "Turn Left" features the time beetle, which is in the employment of the Trickster which featured only in SJA so far (although DW and TW both refer to it), so it makes no sense that one is in the DW list and the other is in the SJA list. Agree? Disagree? Opinions? Regards So Why 18:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it would make it so much easier. I support the second title idea. Glimmer721 ^talk 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. Since the latter two are spin-offs of the former, it makes sense to combine them all; plus, as you point out, it makes it easier to find and delete any duplicates. And I second Glimmer's title vote; FWIW, I think that one is a bit less fan-centric.Sherlockspock (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done I performed this per the bot request here and boldly chose List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens as the destination. Regards, --RA (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Great job, thanks, also for fixing the double redirects. :-) I'll see if I can AWB the incoming links from the old lists to the new one. Regards So Why 21:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nvm, no need to update the incoming links. If I remember correctly, some time ago redirects to sections stopped working if the article was moved but that does not seem to be the case anymore, so there's no need to generate 300-400 AWB edits. Regards So Why 22:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, as lists, their original notability derived from their ability to demonstrate a consistent portrayal of whatnot within a series. For example, the Torchwood list showcased the creative decisions of that team of creators. Now it's a crufty in-universe monster compendium. And it needs re-writing, as the merge was very much a copy/paste job -- loads of references to "the third series" make less sense, as do stray references to Jack, Ianto, and Clyde, here or there. Everything needs glossing.Zythe (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

'Series' vs 'season' issue popping up again

I am interacting with an editor in the main Doctor Who article who is under the impression (1, 2) that we now use 'season' in place of 'series' to denote a grouping of episodes, citing verifiability as the policy on point here. To whit, he feels that since most sources call them seasons, we should too, as verifiability trumps truth. To my thinking, the fellow just needs to look around; there are likely just as many sources that note series as there are US sources that call them seasons. Am I incorrect in my evaluation?
Did the MOS change drastically while I was away from UK shows? My Dad's a Scot, so I am well aware that they still use the term 'series' there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but… if a season is a "series," then what's a series? DW has had been on the air two different times in what those in the US would call a "series". What's the correct UK term for that? "Programme"? "Show"? "Recurring Broadcast Serial Event"? What? :) There has to be another term for it. As a US viewer, I refer to what's currently airing as the "6th season of the 2nd series". How does that translate into UK English?—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style#Terminology; the terms "series" and "season" are both used, and have different meanings. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely the editor saying "most sources" call them seasons, a) needs to read more sources and b) needs to recognise that Doctor Who post-2005 has been directly marketed and publicised by the BBC as series 1 etc. U-Mos (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, you haven't been very clear about this Jack. What Don Quixote was doing in the edits you linked was to do with the classic series "seasons", and how to refer to the two in the infobox at Doctor Who. Although it's right for the classic series to be called seasons per many many sources, I'm not sure the two need separating in the infobox? For that purpose, I would support changing the infobox to read "No. of series: 32 plus one TV film" only. Far less cluttered. U-Mos (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the new change was to "series", which conflicted with articles such as List of Doctor Who serials. Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 22 for more on the discussion (yeah, the discussion wasn't centralised then either).DonQuixote (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to be unclear, U-Mos. Maybe the discussion does indeed to be centralized here (as I had intimated where the subject first came up on the DW article talk page). I do agree with you that there are just as many sources calling the program series as seasons, that was why I thought it was an oversight by DQ when it first came up. Imagine my surprise when I learned that we were opting to enforce American English on the English language Wikipedia. I mean, the only folk who really call them seasons are Americans anyway. Of course we should change everything to reflect the US English term. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you're going to get much support for calling the original run series. Tell it to the BBC's own episode guide, for instance. I can't think of any source that's referred to the original run as "series" in this way post-2005's series 1. It's not favouring the American way, it's simply how they're best known. As I said though, the "seasons" here as such are series by another name, and I favour changing the infobox as I suggested above. U-Mos (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's not really a question of enforcing American English, it's more along the lines of following the conventions of secondary sources, most of which are British. DonQuixote (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So, we are going to treat any UK programme with the same translation from series to season? I think that is going to present a very daunting task, one fraught with a bunch of limeys raising a ruckus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We are not in charge of articles for other programmes. So any discussion here has no effect on them. DonQuixote (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside that that simply doesn't work when trying to create fairly uniform encyclopedia, there is still the problem that the initial edit that brought us here was one by DQ to encompass all of the Doctor Who episodes under the banner of seasons. Both the MOS and other discussions seems to clearly delineate between the haphazard naming conventions of the pre-1981 series and the explicit "series" denotation since 2005.

It would appear to me that we shouldn't be making any decisions like this when the BBC has either been sloppy in their descriptions or - for the past 6 years explicitly called them something else entirely. Tell me how we aren't forcing our own pigeonholing on the show.

As mentioned before, the list of links to where the program is referred to by the UK term and not the US one can get pretty long...

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...

I could go on, but the point is clear - any argument in favor of altering the British naming conventions which call any UK programme series a season is seriously flawed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please recheck the edit history. And please read the edit summaries for those edits within context. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused why this is even an issue. Site wide spelling rules go to, when possible, using the correct national spelling conventions (program and programme for example) if an article topic has a strong tie to a particular nationality (the applications of this in TV articles being rather obvious I should hope). This issue isn't spelling but is obviously conceptually connected. I can't for the life of me see why said concept would be abandoned in favor of U.S. terminology for a clearly UK show. I could see some potential wiggle room on the spinoff, Torchwood, because of how its most recent season was handled. But Dr. Who is a U.K. show and in my experience, U.K. terminology is used in related media articles (films, TV shows, one-off mini-series, etc.). I think we should request additional comment from the folks at WT:TV. The whole idea of using "season" in lieu of "series" on a UK tv article flies against everything I thought I knew about nationality related guidelines on media articles. Millahnna (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed this over the years. We call the series shown in 1963 season 1 because that's what the majority of reiable sources call it. We call the series shown in 2005 series 1 because that's what reliable sources call it. Other numbering systems have been suggested but they would be not be common name or would be unique to wikipedia (i.e. original research). Yes, we have the issue that season means different things in UK and US English, but that better than being confusing or making up our own system. We are reflecting the sources. Edgepedia (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack, be aware that no one here is favouring calling the series since 2005 seasons. So your sources are totally irellevant to this discussion. U-Mos (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just considered the phrase in WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology "Its first usage in an "official" tie-in appears to have been in the first Programme Guide in 1981; prior to that there appears to have been no particular convention." Well, I've got a copy of Dicks & Hulke The Making of Doctor Who (revised edition 1976), where on p. 103 I see "The next season's serials will be referred to as 4A, 4B, 4C, etc."; and on p. 114 "the Doctor is due to tangle with the Sontarans. Then the Daleks, and the Cybermen. In fact, it's almost time to start worrying about next season ...", so "season" has been in use for five years longer than was thought - i.e. at least 35 years. If Terrance Dicks and Malcolm Hulke aren't reasonably reliable sources, then I don't know who is. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

According to various Who historians the terms "season" and "series" were used interchangeably in internal BBC documentation right from the start in 1963. Unfortunately that direct addressing of the point comes from forum posts that are no longer accessible and I don't have my various books to hand to check the use in quoted sources. But it seems to be a myth that "season" is an exclusively US term. In all these discussions I've never seen anyone actually show it's a wrong term for the UK beyond their repeated assertions. Nor for that matter have I ever seen anyone outside Wikipedia take anything Who related to task for using "season" - and I have seen other uses being repeatedly flagged like "episode" instead of "story"/"serial". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If very reliable sources as the ones Redrose64 mentions and even the BBC themselves(!) use the term "season" for the classic series, I fail to see that this is not an UK term. It might not be used much in the UK or not be used anymore but it certainly was back then. Jack has unfortunately somehow mixed up different questions into this discussion that have no place here. The sources he mentioned are exclusively about the 2005 series (and no one so far claimed its parts should be called seasons) and he keeps on mentioning other UK shows. Both is irrelevant to the question at hand, since we only discuss whether the original 1963 series used "seasons". I'm willing to consider another viewpoint but in the interest of Wikipedia:Verifiability - which is the only policy that matters here - I want to see some sources for it first. Regards So Why 21:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah this makes more sense now. Thanks for the info from those sources; I didn't realize the usage was so varied before relatively recently (I'm a yank so what would I know, ya know?). I'd always assumed that the older seasons being referred to as seasons was just something I was seeing as a kid in the States back in the day. Our coverage of UK shows typically uses the terminology more common to the US (so BBC America often says season instead of series, for example). I'm pretty sure Canada uses "seasons" as well but I'm not sure of other English speaking countries like Oz and NZ. Under the circumstances, I guess it does make sense to go with the terminology in the UK sources for the time period of the older seasons. This makes me wonder though (and to bring up a point Jack noted); are we likely to see UK editors trying to "fix it" because they are equally unaware that the terminology is fairly new in terms of dedicated usage? Millahnna (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem. The MoS for the WikiProject pretty clearly explains it and so far the issue was not raised that often - usually editors are reverted once, pointed at the consensus and reasons for it and then stop. The reason we have a long discussion here (again) is that this time multiple reverts back and forth happened. I'd suggest we add it to the show's edit notice maybe, just like the fact that British spelling should not be "corrected" into American spelling. Regards So Why 11:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but, again, what are that "thing" that started in 1963 and ran into the 80s, and that other "thing" that started in 2005 (and is still going) called in the UK? In the US, we call each a "series". —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you like. In general, "classic series" and "new series" are used. Does it matter? U-Mos (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it matters. I can't keep calling it a "thing," but we're not supposed to call it a "series" either. "Classic Series" is something we would say in the US to refer to the original run of Doctor Who, but that doesn't translate. In the UK, (per above stated standards) if you said "classic series" you'd be referring to, for example, that one year when Tom Baker was searching for the Key to Time. That next year when Romana came back as Lalla Ward was another "classic series." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You can always call it a show or programme or drama, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Shubopshadangalang: you state "In the UK, (per above stated standards) if you said "classic series" you'd be referring to, for example, that one year when Tom Baker was searching for the Key to Time." But the "above stated standards" make it clear (to me, at least) that "classic series" refers to the whole run from An Unearthly Child to Survival - 26 seasons in all. Therefore "that one year when Tom Baker was searching for the Key to Time" was the 16th season. The next 20 episodes (or 26 if you include Shada) are the 17th season. If you want to peacock it up a bit, you could call it a "classic season", but I would beg to differ, because Creature from the Pit was poor compared to many others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Redrose, I get what you're saying, yes the phrase "classic series" is used in that way per standards, but that's not really my question, which is about replacing the word "series" for one that has the same meaning in UK English - I simply cited a poor example to clarify my question. DonQuixote says the answer is "programme" or "show" or "drama" that one should use in place of what US viewers would call a "series." But I think those terms could be used to describe a TV movie just the same as they could to describe a particular "series," so either there simply isn't a word for such a thing in UK English, or if there is, no one here knows what it is. "—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my question:

"Season (USA)" = "Series (UK)"

"Series (USA)" = "____ (UK)" ?

—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a logical fallacy. There doesn't have to be a one-on-one mapping between words of one dialect and another...just like there doesn't have to be a one-on-one mapping from one language to another. "Series", "program" and "show" are words that describe what you are asking about (as well as other things) and "programme", "show" an "drama" are similar words that describe what you are asking about (as well as other things). The point is that, depending on the context (such as country of origin, etc.), a "series" can mean a "show" or a "season" and a "year's worth of programming" can be referred to as a "season" or "series". DonQuixote (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Just realised that I strayed into WP:FORUM and off-topic.

It's "series". See Compact OED and BBC. DonQuixote (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Don (and Oxford) but that simply doesn't translate. I do understand what you're getting at, but as a US viewer, if I said "the series finale is coming next week" that means Doctor Who is over forever - never to return. In the UK it means it's just over until the Christmas special. If I said "I watched the entire series" that's a very different statement between the US and the UK. The same word can't mean both things in this context; they have distinct meanings. I suppose "programme" is the best answer I'm going to get (though I still say that's a more general term and not specific to a particular run of the same franchise), so I'll quit harping on it now :)—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 17:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm British, always have been, and intend always to be. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the various terms described at WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. Let's leave that alone. Where discrepancies exist, it is the article that has it wrong, not WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just the nature of language. To use your template,

"steal (USA)" = "nick (UK)"

"nick (USA)" = "nick (UK)"

It's the same word (when written or spoken), but at the same time it's not the same word (context). DonQuixote (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

~~Shubop, there's this thing called *context*.~~ "Classic series"/"new series" refers to the whole run of the programme in its two eras, "second series" refers to the 2006 run of episodes. Same terminology, different context, different meaning. It is clear what is being referred to in each case because of the context it is used in. ~~What is so hard to understand?~~ U-Mos (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I was willing to let it rest with "programme", but ok, then… What I'm looking for here is a basic language issue, not a "Doctor Who terminology" one… "classic series" and "new series" are DW-specific terms. Take another series/programme/drama/show/continously-recurring-episodic-television-serial-event-sequence such as Battlestar Galactica which has existed in multiple iterations. What I'm looking for is a basic term that applies to any such a thing.

@U-Mos:Condescension is a crutch, typically applied to a weak argument. If you have something useful to add to the discussion, please just do so. Otherwise the adults here are going to ignore everything after "there's this thing called…"

@Don: If you're using "series" as a plural (ie "classic series" = "classic seasonS") then I can see how that makes sense.—Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 19:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See BBC: "Being Human: Comedy-drama series about three twenty-something housemates trying to live normal lives, despite struggling with unusual afflictions - one is a werewolf, one is a vampire and the other is a ghost." DonQuixote (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who have access to Gallifrey Base I put this very question in a thread there - my initial post is at [2]. One of the replies posted a scan internal BBC memo from the Head of Serials (basically the show's executive producer) in 1964 which uses "season". [3] If I recall correctly the very document (about cutting Planet of Giants from 4 to 3 episodes) is quoted in the First Doctor Handbook so if anyone's got that to hand there's one of the earliest sources yet. (The thread also has further discussion about the use of the terms in the BBC. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Doctor Who -- The Handbook: The First Doctor, Production Diary, Tuesday 20

As spoken yesterday, I am arranging to reduce the four-part serial entitled Planet of the Giants to three parts. This is the 'miniscule' story with which we must begin our new season....

DonQuixote (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I don't have Gallifrey Base access, but I do have

Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. p. 275. ISBN 0 426 20430 1.

where we find "Tuesday 20 [October 1964] ... Donald Wilson sends Sydney Newman the following memo: As spoken yesterday, I am arranging to reduce the four-part serial entitled Planet of Giants to three parts. This is the 'miniscule' story with which we must begin our new season ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Verifying sources

Hello, I've just nominated Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) for GA and I have some questions related to verfying sources which I may have to do in the review. I've used The Doctor Who News Page and The Doctor Who Location Guide, both of which I have seen in GA or higher class articles, but appear to be fansites. However, the seem to be the only place to find some information (especially AI ratings), and there must be some way to verify them if a reviewer asks other than saying "it's in other GA articles". Any hints? Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 21:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The article on AI implies that the scores are leaked/unofficially released. But you could ask the Doctor Who News Page how they get the info or look in copies of DWM?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

River in Closing Time - minor?

Seeking opinions to River's appearance in Closing Time being listed as minor at Template:River Song stories, which I reverted but it has been changed back. I think her appearance, albeit short and arguably unconnected to the core events of the episode, is a major one because of how significant it is to the overall series arc. U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree; while the events are major in terms of the series, her appearence is minor and the story does not feature her. Glimmer721 ^talk

Craig a companion?

I almost hate to say it, but this clip (from "Closing Time") seems to explicitly designate Craig as a companion. I'm still firmly in the "wait for broadcast" camp, but it's worth noting that it's a definite possibility and to expect editors to move him to companion at Closing Time (Doctor Who). Hopefully a consensus can be reached fairly quickly tonight. U-Mos (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So after the episode, I'm thinking Craig=companion. Amy and Rory (and River) clearly weren't this time around, and when not fighting Cybermen the Doctor spends half the time associating Craig with his companions. Obviously a secondary source would seal the deal though, so do any reviews people have seen mention this? U-Mos (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need more than a review or two surely, as they would be opinions not authoriative. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well reviews are what we used to source Rory as a companion... After watching Gareth Roberts talking on Confidential, I think that's a good source and I'm going to make the change on the article citing it. U-Mos (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Or I would have if SoWhy hadn't beaten me to it! U-Mos (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed this discussion about it. Didn't intend to bypass it. That said, I think we can agree that the writer of the episode himself explicitly using the word to denote Craig is as good a source as we can get, can't we? Regards So Why 09:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The opening titles read "Matt Smith"/"Karen Gillan"/"Arthur Darvill" - no mention of James Corden. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A good point but not really convincing. While I fully admit that I previously argued along those lines myself, I come to realize that that is not really a correct argument. In this episode for example Rory and Amy had but a small appearance and played no role whatsoever while Craig was fulfilling the role of a companion, yet by that argument, we would have to put Amy and Rory as companions and remove Craig. But, more importantly, we do have a very reliable source, the writer of the episode himself, stating that Craig is a companion, so per WP:V we cannot just ignore him and just use the opening titles. We have a couple of articles that disregard those titles. For example, John Simm appears in the opening titles to The End of Time but is not listed as a companion while Journey's End (Doctor Who) lists Mickey Smith as a companion despite him not appearing in the title sequence. Regards So Why 14:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone pointed out a long time ago (sorry, can't remember who), secondary sources are better for this sort of thing. So Confidential is better than opening credits. DonQuixote (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Given how small their role in the episode was, it is likely that their prominence in the title sequence and end credits is down to a contractual matter, ie. their stipulated role as regulars for the entire series. Although a perfectly good indicator of their roles as companions in general (if one were needed), it doesn't really mean anything for an individual episode. U-Mos (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the text needs to address the issue of Craig not meeting the definition in the opening sentence of the article on Doctor Who companions. I believe the quote used was "play the part of companion" which is less definite than "is the Doctor's companion". GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that can be a point of contention. The ambiguity of what he said does make it a little weak. DonQuixote (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We had the same argument about Astrid Peth, who also never traveled with the Doctor and correctly came to the conclusion that the definition cannot be a reason to define someone to not be a companion if we have reliable secondary sources that do. Regards So Why 17:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

and the more of these there are the more the opening sentence of the lede to the article is strained. I was saying this needs to be addressed perhaps by checking again what the definition is. I have seen the episode described as "Companion-lite" implying some peoples perception of what makes a companion though Craig has the supporting character role (deuteragonist) and fulfills the role of the companion/assistant. All a bit tricky really. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose we change the companion article to change "who travels with, and shares the adventures" to "who often travels with, and shares the adventures", that should make the definition fit them all again without straying into OR-territory. Regards So Why 10:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

At Companion_(Doctor_Who)#Definition it says "...there is no formal definition that constitutes such a designation". Perhaps this lack of formal definition needs reflecting in the lead?

Just a reminder that "shares adventures" and "travels in the TARDIS" are common, though not universal, characterstics (and any attempt to fit a character into this criteria is OR). The "definition" of a companion, if we can even call it that, is "whatever the production team and the media label as 'companion' (or 'assistant')". DonQuixote (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding who is or isn't a companion. looking at the article it could with more on the dramatic role and production side of the companion and less to do with the list of companions which currently dominates. Spinning off the list itself to a sub-article might balance the article up again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good thing to do. DonQuixote (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)