Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

WP:RFCBEFORE: Should Doctor Who be considered one, two, or three shows on Wikipedia?

I'll preface this by stating that I have not watched Doctor Who in well over a decade and I'm posting this to avoid it being taken to RfC, and I hope it can be settled within this WikiProject. On Wikipedia, should Doctor Who be regarded as a single television show, two television shows, or three television shows? The three versions maintain continuity of the show between them. Reliable sources typically consider it one cohesive show. There is a prevailing notion of it being divided into two shows from 1963–1989 (with a film in 1996) and 2005–present, known as 'Classic Who' and 'New Who'. The production company restarts the series numbering, which some argue indicates three shows. The production company restarted the series numbering in 2023, and this has caused an eight-month long discussion on Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Season 1 vs Series 14.

  1. One television show (1963–present)
  2. Two television shows (1963–89/96 and 2005–present)
  3. Three television shows (1963–89/96, 2005–23, and 2023–present)

Svampesky (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
One (opener of this WP:RFCBEFORE). My argument is based on reliable sources. These reliable sources regard Doctor Who as a single, unified programme, maintaining the continuity of the three iterations as part of one cohesive show, rather than as separate entities. However, the show has been produced in three distinct iterations: 1963, 2005, and 2023. Before the 2023 version an ad hoc solution was to name the 1963 version 'seasons' and the 2005 version 'series'. If Doctor Who is considered three different shows, the article for Doctor Who may need to be divided into three separate articles (per iCarly and iCarly (2021 TV series), and The Twilight Zone). This might also necessitate splitting the article for The Doctor (Doctor Who) into three to maintain this, or to restructure it into Portrayal of The Doctor in television (per Portrayal of James Bond in film). There is a lot of 'having one's cake and eating it' with the production company of Doctor Who, reliable sources, and Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
One per the above. Sources generally consider Doctor Who as all one show, such as recent Sutekh explainers ("who last appeared in Doctor Who almost 50 years ago") and anything regarding the anniversary dates. Plus the single main article is WP:STABLE and has existed across the period of time where two distinct eras of the show (with a lengthy production break, unlike between series 13 and the new season 1) were apparent. U-Mos (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
One as has always been the case on Wikipedia. The so-called "New Who" is an informal term used to describe the 2005 revival, which is not a separate show / reboot / sequel / anything like that. And the fact that the season numbering has changed multiple times does not mean "the production company produces it as three separate shows" at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Amended the post. Thanks for pointing it out. Svampesky (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
One the several splits are all continuations of the same show, and not separate, individual series. Basically everything I'd add has been said already by the above posts, but saying it's three shows really makes no sense. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Should a consensus be reached for 'One', there would be no distinct separation between 'Classic Who' and 'New Who'. Wikipedia can still acknowledge both but as the same entity, as reliable sources do. This might result in mergers, such as merging List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) with List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), as the current consensus for those particular pages is 'Two'. Svampesky (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue against merging them since while they are the same show, they've had such a large gap in time with such a large number of episodes between them that it's far better organized as two lists. They may be one show, but Wikipedia:SIZESPLIT is still a valid rationale. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The pages are already very long, I'd argue for splitting it by decade (but retaining the decade overlap of the lead actor) for readability, not to distinguish separate shows, to '1963–1969', '1970–1981', '1982–1996' (to include the television film), '2005–2008', '2010–2021', '2024–present', 'Specials'. The current '1963–1989' and '2005–present' is a consensus of 'Two' as it distinguishes "Classic era" from "Revived era". Svampesky (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
"Classic Era" and "Revived Era" are still considered separate iterations of the main show, which feature vastly different styles of episodes between each other. It's considered the same show, but this distinguisher is still a way used to separate the wildly different production styles of the show. I feel splitting it into smaller lists would be detrimental to readership since you have to hop between several smaller lists instead of just hopping between one or two with a clear division due to production styles, especially since these lists don't really have a proper ideology for a split out (Would they be split by showrunner? How many Doctors should we measure a split of a list by? Should it be a specific span of time?) and it just feels like it's asking for future debate where people use all sorts of criteria to merge lists together or split them in an arbitrary way, especially given this WikiProject already has a rampant unnecessary lists problem to begin with. These lists have been used without difficulty for some time and are arguably better for the casual reader (Since the casual reader understands the difference in production values as "Classic" and "Revived" but would not understand, for example, several of these more complicated random splits). While "Classic" and "Revived" aren't two separate shows, they're still terminology used to refer to the difference in production values from before and after Doctor Who's hiatus that are in widespread use. Even if they are describing the same show, it's not uncommon for long running fandoms to group up parts of the run by certain names (Take, for instance, the Silver Age of Comic Books. Many of those comic series (For the most part) are still one ongoing narrative and thus count as one ongoing series, but various points in that history are referred to as "The Silver Age" or "The Golden Age" to differentiate them from different points in history where production values are different.) I don't see an issue with continuing to use the terminology, nor do I see an issue with this list as it currently is, since it's in a state most greatly beneficial to the average reader. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: especially since these lists don't really have a proper ideology for a split out, by decade (with an overlap of the lead actor) as I suggested. Svampesky (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Decades concerns me given each decade had considerably different amounts of episodes (The 80s for example have a large number less than the 70s, while the 60s have more dwindling numbers than the 70s) and for the revived series, you can't split it by decade evenly, since 2005-2015 splits halfway through Capaldi's run as the Doctor, and moving to a different list to discuss his last series would be confusing for non-fans. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
1) A decade, as in calendar-decade. 2) The two lists are already too large. 3) The lists need not be of equal size. 4) If there is a calendar-decade overlap of the lead actor the list would end at the end of their tenure, but are grouped in where the lead actor acted for the most time (if an actor has one series in 2019, but five in 2020–6, it would be grouped as 2019–2026) thus:
The '2018–present' list is because the 'Thirteenth Doctor' has more episodes in the 2020s. The specials list includes the television film. Svampesky (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I still worry about the fact we're basically tripling our current list total. Given the two current lists handle the subjects more than adequately, I see splitting as potentially being more complex. Nonetheless, I feel I've said my piece, so I'll let other editors comment on their thoughts on this for the time being. Should it be decided this is the best method of going about this, I'll help aid with the split/move, in any case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the above is overkill for the revival era; four series only in one list feels needlessly small. I don't see an issue with 2005–2017, or even 2005–2022 (175 episodes, still significantly less than the 60s and 70s) if we wanted to align with the series number reset in the event Doctor Who series 14 etc. are moved. Also, I'm definitely against separating the specials into their own list outside of the chronology. U-Mos (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Aligning with the series number reset in the event Doctor Who series 14 is the reason I opened this RFCBEFORE. If Wikipedia separates anything using this, that would be a 'Three' consensus. Svampesky (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
No, not if the list needs to be split for size reasons (which it does) - that's just pragmatism. U-Mos (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
If the list needs to be divided due to size constraints and is split by versions, this would suggest a 'Three' consensus, per Lists of The Twilight Zone episodes which splits it's lists as different shows. Splitting by calendar-based iterations would imply a 'One' consensus. Svampesky (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
if it does get changed, I'm okay with 2005-2022, that's sensible---oh new reply? you just found yourself agreeing with the three, welcome aboard! Continue as you were, ignore me. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
If the lists are excessive, another recommendation is to merge every other list in the above suggestion into:
I'm not saying if I support or oppose this list grouping, as I'm not a fan of the show. This approach would overlap the 'classic era' and the 'revival era', aligning with a consensus of 'One'. Svampesky (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: the 60s have more dwindling numbers than the 70s whilst there were 270 episodes broadcast in the 1970s and 252 in the 1960s, that's a difference of just 18 - and consider that the 1960s episodes were broadcast over a somewhat shorter period - six years and six weeks, rather than a full ten years for the 1970s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Redrose64 Ah good catch. I misremembered the amount of episodes in the 60s. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The episodes list was split due to size issues, not because of the "Classic Who" vs. "New Who" distinction, so this discussion shouldn't impact them. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I concur regarding the sizing issue. However, the point at which they were divided was at the distinction between the classic version and revived version. Those lists have a consensus of 'Two', so this discussion has the potential to impact them. Svampesky (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's less of a consensus of "Two shows" and more of what I mentioned above, terminology used to describe the difference in production between two different eras of the same program. I don't think this discussion should impact this article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
By the same reasoning, is The Simpsons a "consensus of Two" shows based on List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (season 21–present) existing? This is an identical case, simply disambiguated by year instead. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Not at all. The Simpsons is split into two, I'm assuming, because of size constraints and has picked a round number to do it by. Doctor Who lists cutting off a season 26 is not a round number to do it by and looks to me as an 'Two' consensus. In fact, if the consensus is 'One', I wouldn't be opposed to a The Simpsons approach with the first list group going from Doctor Who season 1 – Doctor Who series 4 if it should be grouped by a round number with thirty series in each list as:
Per The Simpsons splitting the lists into blocks of twenty seasons, an alternative list structure for a 'One' consensus could follow grouping by every twenty Doctor Who series:
Svampesky (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Doctor Who split the two articles at a convenient location; in this case, it was between two production eras, in The Simpsons case, it was at a round number. Where an article is split is arbitrary and based on local consensus. It remains an identical case between two series that are individually one singular programme. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
These articles do not need to be merged if the consensus remains as it being one show. The article has been split for improved performance; we simply chose an easy place to split the two articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Having scan-read the above discussion, note that the WP:PEIS of the two articles are 1,821,728/2,097,152 and 1,227,182/2,097,152 bytes, respectively. The 1963 article won't be expanded any further, and the 2005 article is currently at 58% of its acceptable limit - neither of these articles needs any further split, by decades, showrunner, or any format. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Treat as one show but if we need to split on size, there's plenty of sourcing to talk about Classic and NuWho eras as separate aspects of the same show. That is, there should remain a DW franchise article that talks about the fundamental origins of the show, overview of the main elements (the Doctor, regeneration, TARDIS, Daleks, etc.) and the impact the show's had on British culture. But in terms of discussing the broadcast history and development in detail, separate pages to talk about the different eras of the shows (making sure they are clear these are described as eras of the main show) would help alleviate size issues. --Masem (t) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
One, there's no question that WP:Reliable sources treat the show as being one continuous show (as per examples given in other responses). I'm not 100% convinced that comparing Doctor Who to other shows is useful due to, to paraphrase a well know saying, the unique way the BBC has made Doctor Who. In a manner of speaking, 'Doctor Who' could be considered both a franchise and a single show. Practically speaking, one show does not mean one article - because if it was one article it would have to be split for size. While other articles offered up as comparison seem to split to three levels 'Franchise [ie Twilight Zone] -> Series [ie 1959 series] -> Season [ie 1959 series season 2]', Doctor Who missed out the middle and goes from 'Franchise' level to 'Season' level. I don't think introducing 1963 series, 2005 series and 2024 series articles would be useful for Doctor Who. That would seem to be an unnecessary split of 'Doctor Who' given that the 2024 series article would make multiple references to events in the 2005 and 1962 series. Obviously the number of seasons is a complication; my understanding is when the show was first made, they weren't numbered as such. Rather, after however many years, episode guide books were published which organised and numbered things, and these episode/series/season numbers were subsequently adopted by both fandom and the makers of the show. RTD has rather complicated things with his comic-book-like renumbering of the 2024 series which is currently being discussed, but the numberings for the 1963 series and the 2005 series at least are well established and commonly used by reliable sources. So broadly speaking, while Doctor Who may not me treating itself like other TV show articles on Wikipedia do, the articles are still structured in a way that is both internally consistent, and supported by multiple reliable sources. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
One very obviously. There's also nothing wrong with the current way the episode list is split. I feel like you're trying to fix something that WP:AINTBROKE. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I strongly believe it's one show. Although there is a case (albeit weak) for 2 (1963 and 2005), there are many reasons why it's one per above, but generally it's just based on the fact that it's been one continuous story. XCBRO172 (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
If I can throw my hat in the ring, I agree that it's one show. However, I can imagine keeping it all in one article would make it more confusing and intimidating for any casual reader, both because of the length and because of the gap of time between the two eras. A number of reliable sources (and most fans of the show) agree that it's one show but refer to two separate eras as Classic Who and NuWho (or whatever other names they use). I recently worked on a project regarding tornadoes that have happened Canada that was so lengthy that it had to be split from 1800-1999 and 2000-present. Even though both are referring to tornadoes in Canada, it's much more convenient and makes much more sense to readers. I agree that 2024 series shouldn't be included as it's own article, especially with only one season.
However, and I might be crazy, in terms of articles actually talking about the show (such as the current Doctor Who article) I could see it even being split into three, along the lines of:
  • Doctor Who (Franchise) - explaining more overarching topics such as the history, background, public reception, impact on culture/media, viewership(maybe), spin-offs & other media, big finish, comics, novels, awards, etc etc.
  • Doctor Who (1963-1989/1996) - "Classic Who" explaining the production, maybe taking snippets from public reception, viewership, the doctors, the missing episodes, music for that era, the reasons behind cancellation, the etc. (I'm not convinced on the timeframe of these splits entirely because of the existence of the 1996 movie with the 8th doctor. I haven't seen anyone agree on whether it's Classic or New or somewhere in between? But I would be more inclined to add it to "classic Who" as it was a failed attempt to reboot before the actual series reboot.)
  • Doctor Who (1996/2005-present) - "New Who" explaining the history behind the show being picked up again, (maybe explaining the 8th doctor's movie as I discussed above), production history, production in general, music, viewership, public reception (particularly with the more recent series), showrunners, etc etc etc.
And then of course however many little tiny articles people want to make about each individual season or not, or whatever else. This way, people can read about the histories or information of one or both shows in as much detail as they want, as opposed to more vague or edited information from one huge article. One of the largest reasons I believe a split like this is feasible at this time is because if the show continues to go on for another 20 years, the length in the main article (Doctor Who) is going to become so long that it'll become basically unusable. We may as well split it now to make it easier for the coming years, where there may not be as much activity (or there could be even more, who knows). I also believe the distinction between the two eras would help anyone who has ever heard about Classic Who or NuWho eras who might go to Wikipedia to try to figure out what either of them means.
TLDR; I think we should keep the lists split into two & split the Doctor Who article into three. If I'm being completely crazy please let me know thankyou. Garriefisher (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How should the lede for each series be written?

This is solely concerning the ledes. I have included alternative titles for the first/fourteenth dispute, as this section does not pertain to that matter. Please refrain from using this section to rehash the titling dispute. The options are not the precise wording to be used, they are a general idea of how the text might be phrased.

Option a. (overall series first, version series second)
  • The twenty-seventh series, and first series of the 2005 revival, of the British science fiction programme Doctor Who began on 26 March 2005 with the episode "Rose".
  • The fortieth series, and first series of the 2024 reboot, of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.
  • The fortieth series, and fourteenth series of the 2005 revival, of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.
Option b. (version series first, overall series second)
  • The first series of the 2005 revival, and twenty-seventh series overall, of the British science fiction programme Doctor Who began on 26 March 2005 with the episode "Rose".
  • The first series of the 2024 reboot, and fortieth series overall, of British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.
  • The fourteenth series of the 2005 revival, and fortieth series overall, of British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.
Option c. (version series only)
  • The first series of the 2005 revival of the British science fiction programme Doctor Who began on 26 March 2005 with the episode "Rose".
  • The first series of the 2024 reboot of British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.
  • The fourteenth series of the 2005 revival of British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.
Option d. (overall series only)
  • The twenty-seventh series of the British science fiction programme Doctor Who began on 26 March 2005 with the episode "Rose".
  • The fortieth series of the of British science fiction television programme Doctor Who premiered on 11 May 2024, and aired through to 22 June.

Svampesky (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • B (opener of this discussion). The version series should be first since it's familiar to the reader; and if a consensus of 'One' is reached, the overall series number should also be included in the same section after the version series number. Svampesky (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
    Agree The consensus is currently strongly swinging to "One" and b fits the best, as with "A", it would mention an uncommon name over the WP:Commonname, "C" might give the wrong impression to people unaware of the history of the series (i.e. that the revival and original aren't connected) and isn't as comprehensive, and finally, "D" doesn't even use the common name. XCBRO172 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The current format (somewhere between b and c) works completely fine as far as I'm concerned. The lead for Doctor Who series 14 says This series is the fourteenth to air since the programme's revival in 2005, and the fortieth season overall, and some, but currently not all, revival series have similar sentences. If consensus is to move series 14 to season 1, the lead obviously should reflect that. I feel that the phrasing in B makes the sentence too long and reads poorly; the first sentence should not be so broken up. Introducing the article with the "version" numbering, and later stating which series it is overall, gets the same information across but has drastically improved readability. The current phrasing is fine. Irltoad (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to concur with the above that the current format that is out there, is fine as is. Not every series/season article has to read exactly the same way. Some editors may be inclined to use one option on one article and a different option on another. Alternative options may also exist depending on the current state of any specific article; option c may work for a Start-class article, while a good or featured article may not be suited by any of these formats. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Revisiting "Useful reference websites" section on WikiProject

Hello all! I'm pretty new to this WikiProject (and to Wikipedia in general) and while I'm not certain if this is where I should bring this concern, I thought I'd give it a shot!

I was looking through the WikiProject's "see also" section where websites for referencing is listed to help me fix up some citation issues on a few pages. As I was looking through, I noticed that a number of the links are either no longer available or have changed destination, are broken/dead, etc. So I kinda fell down a rabbit hole of checking them all. However, I'm not sure about the formatting that everyone wants and I'm ngl I felt pretty nervous about changing anything myself so here's a list of all of the references already included along with my research about what links needed changing:

  1. The BBC Doctor Who microsite - Orange tickY Maybe. Link currently used redirects to here instead, but the topic seems to be the same?
  2. The BBC classic series episode guide - Orange tickY Maybe. Website page is archived via the BBC, I'm unsure of it it was archived prior to the link being added.
  3. Shannon Patrick Sullivan's "A Brief History of Time Travel", which contains a wealth of production information - Green tickY Good.
  4. The Doctor Who Reference Guide, which primarily focuses on plot - Orange tickY Maybe. Current link redirects to here. Appropriate change would be to change current link to https://doctorwho.guide/who.htm.
  5. Outpost Gallifrey Episode Guide, which primarily focuses on plot but includes the entire production team and cast for episodes (defunct since 2007)
  6. Doctor Who Locations, for finding filming locations for the series - Green tickY Good.
  7. Digital Spy's Doctor Who section, which includes news and reviews pursuant to the new series - Orange tickY Maybe. Current redirect is a broken link. I think the equivalent would be this link.
  8. The Stage's TV Today blog, which nearly always reviews new series Doctor Who episodes after they have aired. - Red XN Broken. "Blogs" category of The Stage no longer exists. I'm unable to find an alternative relating to DW.
  9. SFX's section on Doctor Who, which is useful for finding news and reviews - Red XN Broken. Current link is dead and instead redirects here. I'm unable to find a tag equivalent to Doctor Who as the tag feature seems to have been removed, but please correct me if I'm wrong. The only way to access specifically DW content is via the search bar.
  10. The Guardian's Doctor Who section, which is also useful for finding news and reviews - Green tickY Good.
  11. The Doctor Who section on IGN, which has reviewed episodes since series 2 and also contains some news articles - Orange tickY Maybe. Current link is dead, instead redirects to here Using search, I've found two different possible equivalents: Doctor Who (1963-1989) & Doctor Who (2006-present)
  12. The A.V. Club's reviews of the new series (series 4-present) and the classic series (selected serials). The site also contains news and interviews. - Red XN Broken. Both links are dead and the site's "TV club" seems to be discontinued. I could only find DW content individually via the search bar.

Anyways, sorry for the lengthy post & if this is totally not the right place to do this. Thank you all for your time, and please let me know if there's anything I need to do or if it's someone higher on the list than me's job or whatever! Thanks :) Garriefisher (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Garriefisher Thank you for taking the time to do this. Our main page is very outdated in a lot of aspects, so this is good to catch now, especially when we're in a large spot of growth. I have decided to be BOLD and edited the references page per your suggestions, slotting in new links for defunct ones and removing problematic sources. I have added the Radio Times' reference materials per an earlier discussion, and have additionally noted that AV Club, SFX, and The Stage TV Today may be useful sources, even if they do not have dedicated sections. Let me know your thoughts and if this can be improved further. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for doing this! It looks great, however, I do have two(2) concerns: Firstly, I think I didn't state this well enough in my initial post so that's my bad, but The Stage doesn't have a TV section anymore, it looks to me like they only have content relating to theatre & stage (not TV or cinema). Even searching Doctor Who on the website comes up with reviews of performances by DW actors appearing on stage. So there's neither blogs nor TV, unless I'm completely blind and have missed it entirely.
Secondly, should link to the Wiki pages or to the websites themselves for AV Club, SFX, (and potentially The Stage TV)? I don't think we have to link to the search results or anything like that, just that we could do it like: AV Club and SFX. I think that would just make it more convenient for others to use, particularly because the list of sources above takes them directly to the sites themselves, but please let me know your opinions!
I could also maybe spend some time today or tomorrow looking for other reference sources, if we wanted? Thanks again! Garriefisher (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Garriefisher I've taken your suggestions and removed The Stage TV, and added direct links to AV Club and SFX. If there are any other sites you feel would be valuable to add, feel free to run them by here. I myself wouldn't know where to start, I'm afraid, but it would be beneficial if there's any big ones we could add to the list that we haven't added yet. I'd say it's entirely up to you if you want to take a look, since our current reference library is pretty solid, but there's nothing wrong with adding more sources if you feel there's place to expand. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_35&oldid=1249734077"