Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Litefoot (talk | contribs)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|shortcut=WT:WHO}}
{{to do}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. An index of these discussions can be found [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive index|here]].
{{WikiProject Doctor Who}}
}}
{{to do|for=[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who]]|target=Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who|nocats=yes|collapsed=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-27/WikiProject report|writer=[[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]|day=27|month=August|year=2012}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 35
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Suggestions for the Main Page ==
If further archiving is needed, see [[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page]].


I've been taking a look at the main page recently and feel there's a few things that could be improved on. I'm more than willing to help with the suggestions, but I'd like to bring it up in discussion before anything is done.
{{whotalkarchivenav}}


# Could we split the list of participants into those who are active and inactive? While sometimes it's hard to tell, there are many members on the list who haven't been active on the list for years (Some even more than a decade) and if people need to ping participants, it would be better for them to not have to sift through a list of people who have been inactive for eons. {{Done}}
==Restructuring of serial articles==
# The Task Forces listing seems strange given it's unlikely we're going to branch out into more task forces (Especially when Torchwood has been inactive for over a decade at this point). Should we still continue to list it as a possibility? I think it's unlikely it'll ever branch out. {{Done}}
# The freenode channel no longer works and should probably be removed unless a new one is made, especially since most discussion takes place on-site these days. {{Done}}
# The sample articles for books and audio plays ([[Lungbarrow]] and [[Jubilee (audio drama)]]) are in very bad shape despite being the sample articles. Additionally, do we really need a "sample device" article? The only device other than the Sonic we have an article for is the TARDIS, and there's very few other devices that would necessitate the need for a template. {{Tobedone}}
# Should we include an updates infobox? (Similar to those used at [[Wikipedia:VGCHAR]], for example) I feel it would be beneficial for keeping track of talk page discussion, especially given how active both this project and the fandom have been recently. {{Done}}
# Could we include Radio Times' Doctor Who sections in the reference section? They're genuinely very helpful for giving an overview of information, gaining reviews, and sourcing cast members, among other things.[https://www.radiotimes.com/doctor-who-episode-guide/][https://www.radiotimes.com/doctor-who/] {{Done}}
# The Deletion Discussion archive has not been updated in some time. I feel at this stage it should either be abandoned, or have some effort put into locating all of the deletion discussions and adding them to the list. {{Tobedone}}


These are just general things I've noticed of course, and aren't pressing issues, but I thought I'd bring them to attention to see what should be done about certain issues/if certain suggestions should be accepted and brought forward. Let me know your thoughts. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This is sort of a continuation of the discussion begun above at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 7#"Notes" section in episode articles|"Notes" section in episode articles]]. I've made some changes to [[An Unearthly Child]], in an attempt to begin the process of bringing some important info that's currently in the "trivia" section into the main body of the article, in the hope that this will eventually lead to more "out-of-universe" info in the individual serials articles. I've added sections on "Production," "Transmission," and "In print," just to start things off. (I went with "In print" as opposed to "Novelization," so that the section can include relevant info from the original novel ranges, and I'm hoping someone can come up with a better word than "Transmission" that more clearly includes video and dvd releases.) I think that the Trivia sections should ultimately consist mostly of in-universe info (of the "This is the first time we see the Doctor blah blah blah" variety), with real-world info taking its place in the main article itself (alongside the plot description). I haven't actually done much besides shuffle around the existing info, but hopefully the restucturing will encourage folks to add to what's there (I'm not in a place right now where I can do much of that myself, for assorted real-life reasons). I'll hold off on doing this to more articles until other people can chime in with thoughts. --[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


:Can I add that there's a DW MoS - [[WP:WHO/MOS]] - that appears to be in dire need of an update? I did comment on the talk page for that previously, though (perhaps understandably) it didn't garner any response.
:I think this is a very good idea — I won't have time to help with the reorganization for a while, but I support what you're doing. How about "Release" to cover transmission and video/DVD releases? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:Regarding your points, 1, 3 and 7 seem sensible and straightforward suggestions. <strike>2 the seemingly unofficial taskforce getting the new series articles up to GA standard could be added here.</strike> 5 there's an incredibly well hidden link in the 'Welcome' box that lists updates, but it appears to be working off the 'full list of pages' linked earlier in the sentence that is (a) incomplete, not containing any of the new series articles, and (b) includes articles that have been deleted since the list was compiled. [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]] ([[User talk:JustAnotherCompanion|talk]]) 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
::I disagree with the new series task force idea. Though I do pose the idea of marking Torchwood historical. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, my intention with this suggestion was more to recognise the work you and @[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]] and others have being doing on these articles rather than suggest more work needs to be done, but as you think it's a bad idea I'm happy to go back and strike the suggestion. [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]] ([[User talk:JustAnotherCompanion|talk]]) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Definitely feel Torchwood should be made historical given how inactive it's been for so long. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 19:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I have no issue with marking the TW Taskforce as inactive, potentially merging any relevant content/participants here. Trimming the active participants here also seems worthwhile. No strong opinion from me on the rest.
::::There also used to be a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter|newsletter for the WikiProject]] ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Newsletter/March_2008|March 2008]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/April 2008|April 2008]]). I'd be willing to collaborate with someone on it, if anyone wanted to try and start it back up. It doesn't have to be monthly, it could be quarterly, biannually, etc. I think it would be a good way to inform people of updates who don't specifically watch this page, and potentially foster new involvement in the project. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'd honestly be down to help with the Newsletter. Seems a good way of updating people on developments with the project and with the show. I feel it could potentially be embellished a little from the initial concept, but I'm admittedly not too familiar with how Wikipedia handles individual newsletters like this these days. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::There's a list of active newsletters at {{tl|Newsletters}} if you wanted examples on how other WikiProjects handle them. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::That sounds like something worthwhile, I've been considering proposing something similar, unaware of the existence of the defunct letter <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 20:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think a newer updated design for it would also be useful. We can definitely start getting something together! {{smiley}} [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We definitely need to trim the active participants list before we get to the point of sending a newsletter out. There was a newsletter recipient list, but given that it hasn't been active since '08 it's out of date. For the first new newsletter we can use the updated participants list, and then give editors the opportunity to opt out of future editions after this. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How would we go about trimming the list. By most recent edit presumably? If so is there a applicable bot for it? <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::We should probably trim those who haven't been active in years, for a start, but for active editors who happen to be listed who don't participate anymore, I am uncertain how we'd discern it. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::For context, by trim I mean shift to a separate "inactive participants" list [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::If its checking for those who stopped it would presumably be have to be done manually. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Most likely, yes. Obviously some participants are obvious since they're active frequently in WP:DOCTORWHO projects, but it'll take manual sorting for those that aren't obvious. Alternatively, we could keep the iffy cases in there and just leave it and figure it out after the Newsletter is sent out. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Fortunately, each entry has a contribs link. I suggest that we start by checking those, and anybody with nothing at all in the last year can be moved to the new "inactive participants" list. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I just trimmed all usernames starting A-K, purely anyone who has been inactive for 12 months or longer. I haven't checked yet for editors who are actually still active within the project. Question though, is it worth keeping a list of editors who are inactive? I can't think of any particular reason why it would be useful for us. Unless someone else has one, I'll just mark it as historical as well. We can keep trimming the main list by just removing those who are inactive altogether rather than moving them to an a separate list. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 06:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::For those unaware, the lists are at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Active participants]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Inactive participants]]. The latter was created way back in April-May 2008, but has seen little maintenance since. Other WikiProjects also have inactive participants lists, for example [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members#Former members|Football]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Members/Dormant and Inactive|London Transport]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members/Inactive|Military history]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Members#Inactive participants|Trains]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::[[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] possibly applies here to a degree. That other WikiProjects do something is no reason for this one to do the same. I'll note also that in at least one case, their inactive list is bot maintained so doesn't take up a person's time, while we're updating our lists manually. In theory it might be nice to keep a list of historical contributors, but in practice I'm not sure how much it would mean here. Not least because presence on the list does not mean any contribution has necessarily been made (who among us hasn't signed up to at least one thing in life without following through?). At least we're only removing inactive users here and not, as has been the case in the past elsewhere, entire projects and project histories. [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]] ([[User talk:JustAnotherCompanion|talk]]) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{od|16}} Just a quick update. I have finished trimming inactive editors from the active list. I went ahead and added and updated the inactive participants for now while we still determine if it's useful. I boldly marked the sympathizer list as historical and merged it with the active/inactive participants. I also marked the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Recipients|former newsletter mailing list]] as historical and created a '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/Mailing list|new one]]'''. I went ahead and added anyone remaining in the active list to the new mailing list. We'll include an option in the new newsletter for people to opt out if they wish. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


:So now all thats left is writing the thing. I think that it should probably cover the first half of the year given thats when the recent productivity began. Then continue quarterly <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:Please also update the style guide on the WikiProject page so the continuing fracturing of style across the various pages caused by different people doing different things to a minimum. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
::I created a very base design using [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters/June 2024|this newsletter]] as a base. I'm not too attached to the design, so if anyone else has the time or skill to design something better, please be my guest. The old design just seemed too outdated in my opinion and my Wiki design skills aren't the best. The GOCE seemed to have the best in terms of simplicity, I figured we didn't want to overwhelm people. It's located at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/2024/July]] if anyone else wants to start adding to it. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh, I was also considering if we wanted a new name for it. Space-Time Telegraph is good, but just considering we're revamping everything else, we could change that as well. ''The Gallifreyan'' crossed my mind as an option. I'm open to other suggestions too. We can also keep the current name if its the best option. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I personally like the Space-Time telegraph, I would say maybe through in a line in the first issue requesting alternative name sugestions? <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree. I feel Space-Time Telegraph is more than fine but I feel leaving it open is valid as well.
:::::What should we tackle in terms of subject matter? I assume the recent GANs and productivity for a start, as well as the coverage on series 14. Should anything else be covered? [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 02:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm fine with leaving it at Space-Time Telegraph then, just wanted to pitch it. I'd definitely agree in saying that series 14 and the work towards GA's/GT's on both Classic and New Who is something to write about. We could potentially mention the series 14/season 1 RM if that's still ongoing when we send it out. Also the seven points that started this discussion, see if anyone who isn't watching this page wishes to help update the information. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I feel both are good. I do believe 1 has been addressed already, though. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Do either of you have any specific portions that you want to write of the topics we've discussed (or anything else even)? I can take anything that's left, I just didn't want to take anything anyone else planned on writing given I already wrote the intro. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm down to write any of the sections. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 17:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|Pokelego999}} why don't you write over the proposals that started this discussion since you're the one who originally proposed them? If {{ping|OlifanofmrTennant}} is interested in writing, perhaps she could write over the GA's since she sparked most of the productivity there? [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Works for me. Are we still covering the move discussion? [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::As long as it's still active when we're ready to send the newsletter. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yeah alright. I've been pretty busy with some [[Life|scary]] stuff recently but I should be able to write it. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 09:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::@[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]] I've written a mockup for the section about the proposals. (Which will ironically be very funny given we're linking people to the discussion we discussed the newsletter in lmao). Let me know if you feel it should be altered, since I was admittedly uncertain how to frame these proposals in something like this. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 22:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Thanks to the two of you for writing your sections! I was hoping to wait a day or two here to see if the series 14 RM gets relisted or closed. I'd really hate to mention it and have it closed two minutes after I send the newsletter. Once that's done I'll send it out promptly. (If there's no official relist/closure by Saturday night, I'll go ahead and add/send it at that time.) [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 07:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{sent}} Went ahead and sent it tonight. Thanks for helping out guys! If we're hoping to send quarterly, this is probably close enough to count as the June edition and we could also get issues out in September and December? [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::That could work. I'm down. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::A question about the newsletter: concerning the entry about "The Star Beast" article, what does being {{tq|still salty about the move}} concern? Is it about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Star_Beast_(Doctor_Who_episode)&diff=prev&oldid=1229296112 this] move? -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
{{od|17}}A belated reply to the proposals listed at the top of this section...
# This point has already been addressed.
# Although it would be cool to see further task forces operating under this WikiProject, it seems very unlikely that any further task forces will be created. I support removing the listing, but we should definitely keep a link to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Torchwood|Torchwood task force]] for easy access.
# Agree with removing the freenode channel.
# Agree that the book and audio play samples should be changed to better quality articles. Agree that the "sample devices" template should be removed.
# The updates infobox seems not a bad idea, but it clutters the [[Wikipedia:VGCHAR]] page a lot and looks odd, pushing the regular text down the page. Is there a better way to present the same information?
# Yes, we should definitely include the ''Radio Times'' references.
# Wow, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Deletion discussion archive|deletion discussion page]] was last edited in 2009! It would probably be easier to abandon this deletion discussion altogether.
'''My suggestions'''
# I think we should include a link on the main page to the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter|newly-regenerated newsletter]].
# We should also make the signing-up-for-the-project link easier to locate. It seems lost in the lead sentence, surrounded by all those other wikilinks.
[[User:Mr Sitcom|'''Mr Sitcom''']] ('''[[User talk:Mr Sitcom|talk]]''') 10:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:Mr Sitcom|Mr Sitcom]] Ah, sorry I didn't reply to this until now, I didn't receive a notification of this.
::The style guide - I didn't think of that. Should that wait until a few more people have weighed in? And at least until there's agreement on what the new sections should be. I guess I'm proposing "Production," "Release" (which I think is better than my "Transmission"), "In print" (unless that could be covered under "Release"?), and then any special sections important enough to be relevant to that particular serial (like [[An Unearthly Child#Pilot episode|the pilot episode]] or [[The Brain of Morbius#The "Morbius Doctors"|the "Morbius Doctors"]]). Any other section titles that might be appropriate for the bulk of the serial articles? --[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
:VGCHAR has been updated since this post, and now has shifted the updates to a separate tab. Admittedly I'm not sure about something like that for this WikiProject all things considered, as while I feel the updates are useful and helpful for maintaining articles, I'm honestly not sure of how best to arrange it. Something I didn't notice before is that we do have a recent changes thing similar to them already, but it's not updated to current standards and hidden out of the way. I definitely feel the second paragraph of the "Welcome!" box could be expanded with this information but I'm admittedly not sure how to do so (As I feel we could expand it or make it a seperate box entirely).
:I definitely agree on linking the newsletter (especially since this is planned to be an ongoing element) and I agree on making the sign up notice easier to locate. Admittedly not sure on the best method of doing so to make them easily visible to readers, however. Perhaps it could be done alongside the expansion I mentioned above? I'm not entirely sure, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::That WGCHAR page looks much better formatted that way! With regards to the recent changes link, I think we should update it to current standards and place it in a separate box near the top of the page, along with a link to the full list of pages, although [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/articles|that page]] hasn't been updated for some time either – should we invest time in updated that page?
::In the "Welcome" box, we can write something like "Click here to sign up to the participants list!", in '''bold''', in a separate paragraph below the introductory text. Perhaps we can list the link to the newsletter under the "Organisation" box... [[User:Mr Sitcom|'''Mr Sitcom''']] ('''[[User talk:Mr Sitcom|talk]]''') 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. At worst it seems more tedious than difficult.
:::I do feel we could probably put the Newsletter either where the freenode channel currently is, or put it above the associated WikiProjects depending on people's thoughts, with a note to sign up for the newsletter close to it? I do feel putting the sign-up incredibly far away from the organization box may be counterintuitive given the two aspects are associated with each other. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually.}} There are two links in the last sentence of the first part of the infobox; two very-easily missed links that I have a devil of a time finding each time I look for them even though I know they are there! {{tq|A full list of pages in the WikiProject can be found '''here''' and recent changes to these pages can be seen '''here'''.}} (the bolded words are where the links are in the project page, I haven't linked from here). It looks like the former was to a degree manually updated, but presumably there would've been a script to output all the articles tagged as being part of the project? Otherwise as you say it would have been tedious to generate. The latter link appears to be some kind of clever thing that updates the results based on changed to the articles listed in the first list. This means that if we update the list of articles, the list of updates will be generated automatically. I hope someone knows an easy way to get a list of all articles that are tagged as being part of this project. (Apologies if I have at any point misunderstood either the object of something, or how it works) [[User:JustAnotherCompanion|JustAnotherCompanion]] ([[User talk:JustAnotherCompanion|talk]]) 18:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od|4}}Do we have any idea what might be some ideal sample articles for the book and audio drama categories (Suggestion #4)? I've had a quick look, but not any success. Also, has the final point been addressed? [[User:Mr Sitcom|'''Mr Sitcom''']] ([[User talk:Mr Sitcom|'''talk''']]) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


:Pinging @[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]], otherwise this might go unread. :) [[User:Mr Sitcom|'''Mr Sitcom''']] ([[User talk:Mr Sitcom|'''talk''']]) 00:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Another way to approach things is to go ahead and restructure the articles willy-nilly based on what sort of contents you find, and then once you've done a bunch go back and look at them and see whether you came up with some common groupings of information. I did a little reorganization the other day on [[Army of Ghosts]] and [[Love & Monsters]] and found that there was a lot of information on casting and a lot of information on references to other episodes of Doctor Who lumped into the trivia section, so after a while one thinks it might be worthwhile adding sections for that stuff. I notice that a "cast notes" subsection's been added to both of those since then, how about using that? [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:@[[User:Mr Sitcom|Mr Sitcom]] admittedly not sure, especially since all other articles for those two are in similar states. We could potentially improve Jubilee and Lungbarrow, but I dunno where I'd start or what the breadth of coverage is on those. As for the Archive, probably better off removed. I'll work that out later today. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 22:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


== Another potential Good Topic ==
:::Oh, and it would be nice to avoid simply splitting one big bulleted list up into several smaller ones - I originally de-bulleted the stuff I reorganized in the hopes that it would get turned into ''prose'' with further editing. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I know we've discussed a number of possible good topics here lately. This one would take quite a bit of work to improve those that are below GA standard, but I do think this may make an interesting topic. A number of these, especially from the Tennant and Smith eras, probably aren't too far away as they already have well fleshed-out reception and production sections, and just need a general cleanup before being nominated.
{{Featured topic box
| title = Doctor Who Holiday Specials
| lead = {{icon|FL}} [[List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials]]
| view =
| count = 19
| image =
| imagesize =
| column1 =
: {{icon|C}} "[[The Christmas Invasion]]"
: {{icon|C}} "[[The Runaway Bride (Doctor Who)]]"
: {{icon|GA}} "[[Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who)]]"
: {{icon|C}} "[[The Next Doctor]]"
: {{icon|C}} "[[The End of Time (Doctor Who)]]"
: {{icon|GA}} "[[A Christmas Carol (Doctor Who)]]"
| column2 =
: {{icon|GA}} "[[The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe]]"
: {{icon|GA}} "[[The Snowmen]]"
: {{icon|C}} "[[The Time of the Doctor]]"
: {{icon|B}} "[[Last Christmas (Doctor Who)]]"
: {{icon|start}} "[[The Husbands of River Song]]"
: {{icon|B}} "[[The Return of Doctor Mysterio]]"
| column3 =
: {{icon|B}} "[[Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who)]]"
: {{icon|B}} "[[Resolution (Doctor Who)]]"
: {{icon|B}} "[[Spyfall (Doctor Who)|Spyfall]]"
: {{icon|B}} "[[Revolution of the Daleks]]"
: {{icon|GAN}} "[[Eve of the Daleks]]"
: {{icon|GAN}} "[[The Church on Ruby Road]]"
}} [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)


:I definitely think this has some promise. For what each article needs, looking at a glance:
::::The difficulty with this is that the individual subjects of the notes are usually disconnected, even if under the same general theme, so do not lend themselves well to a single prose piece, which is why I bulleted them again. If they can be reorganised, then that's the time to remove the bullets, but until that happens, it simply reads odd. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:-The Christmas Invasion needs a Reception section. It also needs citations for various unsourced claims and a beef up in production info, which is very lacking despite what's already there.
:-The Runaway Bride looks decent at a glance but needs a buff to Reception.
:-The Next Doctor looks much the same but needs a Reception section. The Continuity section needs to be axed as well.
:-The End of Time looks decent. Mostly just seems like basic cleanup and source additions.
:-The Time of the Doctor's production could probably be expanded but it looks in a good state right now.
:-Last Christmas looks decent at a glance. Needs some buffing up in places and cleanup but overall not a bad state.
:-The Husbands of River Song needs a buff to Production and Reception and a massive trimming in the continuity section.
:-The Return of Doctor Mysterio looks decent but needs buffs to Production and Promotion.
:-Twice Upon a Time looks solid. Continuity could probably be trimmed, and some other areas need cleanup and expansion, but nothing too egregious.
:-Resolution needs a Production and Reception buff.
:-Spyfall needs a Production and Reception buff.
:-Revolution of the Daleks needs a Production and Reception buff.
:-Eve of the Daleks need a Production and Reception buff.
:I'd say the articles that need the most work are all of Thirteen's specials and The Husbands of River Song. The other articles listed above have some issues, but the episodes listed there have the most amount of work needed in order to bring them to GA status. If we focus down on this I can see it being fairly do-able, though. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
::I do intend to work on the Time of the Doctor and the Capaldi specials. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd be willing to start with the Whittaker era specials. Splitting the work by era seems like it may be the fastest way to achieve this one. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd be willing to hit up whatever spots you want. I can probably try hitting up the non GA Tennant specials and help with Thirteen's if you two are hitting up the other areas. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 05:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you wanted to start with Tennant's that might be the best. That way each special is covered between the three of us. Then as we start finishing up we can jump in where others need help. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll see if I can't start on [[The Christmas Invasion]] in the coming days. Been a bit busy lately and I'll need to hit up some comments on my FL nomination, but I should be able to get started on this soon. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 04:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
::I'm more than willing to help with anything that works best for you guys, I just don't want to step on any toes or anything like that. In particular, I'm super familiar with Capaldi and Tennant's run, but I'm good working on anything really. [[User:Garriefisher|Garriefisher]] ([[User talk:Garriefisher|talk]]) 06:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::We always appreciate the extra assistance anywhere we can get it. Feel free to jump in anywhere you'd like to help out! All of Capaldi's specials and most of Tennant's need work based on the notes left above. If you're working heavily on any particular page just drop us a message so that we (hopefully) don't duplicate any work. {{smiley}} [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 06:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::By the way, feel free to update this chart as any progress is made, just so that we can all keep track of where this stands. I just sent EotD off to the powers that be at GAN. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:Requesting a bit of help here: I'm struggling a bit to find reviews for The Christmas Invasion due to its age, and so far I have only managed to find a Radio Times and AV Club source. Any additional sources yall can find would be greatly appreciated in order to build a comprehensive reception section. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 20:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Pokelego999}} [https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/10/03/doctor-who-the-christmas-invasion-review Here's a standalone review from IGN] [https://cultbox.co.uk/features/rewind/doctor-who-christmas-countdown-day-2-the-christmas-invasion and a retrospect from Cultbox]. You may also be able to pull some more retrospective review-ish type content out of the some Christmas special rankings: [https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who-ranking-christmas-new-year-specials/ Den of Geek], [https://www.vulture.com/article/best-doctor-who-christmas-specials-ranked.html Vulture] (let me know if you can't access this one because of the paywall and I'll email you the paragraph regarding this episode), [https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/cult/a816678/doctor-who-christmas-specials-ranked/ Digital Spy], [https://mashable.com/article/doctor-who-christmas-specials-ranked Mashable] and [https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-christmas-specials-ranked/ ScreenRant] all have 2-3 paragraphs on this episode specifically that you should be able to pull a few statements out of. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]] Thank you! I checked IGN and couldn't find that when I looked, so thank you for catching that one. I'll try and whip something up with this tomorrow if I have time, since this should hopefully be more than enough. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 04:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Of course, glad I could help! Let me know if I can help anywhere else. {{smiley}} [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]] due to my scheduling I don't think I'll be able to do as much major article overhauling as I'd like, so I'm going to be dropping out of helping this for the time being. If time allows I'll see if I can't help elsewhere but between my irl commitments and other WikiProject commitments I dunno how much I'll be able to contribute meaningfully to this project. I'm really sorry about this, but I figured I'd let you know just so that way it didn't seem like I was absconding my work. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 22:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::No worries, thanks for the help you've provided so far! If you ever want to jump in anywhere on it in the future feel free, even if they're just minor edits. Best of luck on your other endeavors. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


Hi! I haven't been on here in forever but I am responsible for a lot of Series 5-7 stuff back in the day (when I was a literal teenager lol). (I hope those hold up...I'm afraid to check and see if people added unsourced things or trivia.) I would maybe like to help in the next two weeks at least? I'm so glad I just happened to login and see how things are going and see that things have really revitalized. I can try to work on some Capaldi. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I'll go ahead and follow Bryan's suggestion by diving in, and see how it develops. I'm going with "Broadcast and releases" for info on transmission info and home video/DVD releases - it seems most accurate, even though it feels clumsy (and I'm still hoping someone else can think of something better). --[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
:Update: I am working a bit on [[The Husbands of River Song]]. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 15:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:Yo welcome back! Thank you for all that work you did back in the day, and thank you for helping out on this drive as well, it's an honor to have you. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::You're welcome. You can see where I got tired of the grind of writing reception sections after episodes aired right at [[Nightmare in Silver]]. I'm interested in working on Capaldi era episodes probably the most right now because I'm due for a rewatch. It seems there are a lot more resources now digitally available. I do have some old DWM issues and DVDs that can help with certain classic series episodes, but we're not there yet... [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 21:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I would like to thank you for the progress you did provide for Nightmare in silver as it really helped me kick into gear <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
::::You're welcome! Also, I have a 2013 special edition of DWM that might have stuff for "Time of the Doctor" when we need that. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 01:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Update: I've done a lot, let me know what you think! I know I have to work on the lead, cutting down the plot summary, and maybe some sources need to be updated or have more details. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 17:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)


:It certainly has improved a lot with your contributions! It could definitely use some minor cleanup with the things you listed, but it's definitely a lot closer to GA standards now than it was before you started. {{smiley}} [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe "Distribution" ? -- [[User:Chuq|Chuq]] 01:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Exciting news! The lead list article for this future GT is now an FL! [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)


And please, ''please'', when people move the cast-related notes up, add the cast notes subheader and bullet them. Also, it's "References to other '''stories'''", since not all of them were episodes. I've been cleaning this up after Bryan and it's getting a little tiring. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I fear that my ADHD causes me to take on too many projects at a single time. Anyways, now that I'm over my recent case of COVID, I wanted to mention that I also plan on working towards the following GT:
:I don't see why there needs to be a separate "cast notes" subsection to the "cast" section since the "cast" section is already rather sparse on content - in all cases I've seen so far it's just been a plain list of characters and actors. And I've already explained my distaste for yet more bulleted lists of facts. This isn't a question of "cleaning up", it's a matter of differing views on how the article should be structured. [[User:Bryan Derksen|Bryan]] 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Featured topic box
| title = ''Doctor Who'' specials (2022)
| lead = {{icon|start}} [[Doctor Who specials (2022)]]
| view =
| count = 4
| image =
| imagesize =
| column1 =
: {{icon|GAN}} "[[Eve of the Daleks]]"
| column2 =
: {{icon|GAN}} "[[Legend of the Sea Devils]]"
| column3 =
: {{icon|C}} "[[The Power of the Doctor]]"
}}
[[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)


:I feel the exact same way, I have around five ongoing projects with another 3 I'm considering tackling. My blu Ray copies of TUAT and TRoDM arrived so I will likely get around to the Capaldi specials soon, hopefully <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 03:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::I've also explained why the bullets make more sense, since the paragraphs are not part of a unified sub-essay but are disparate points united only by a basic theme. Also, the cast notes sub-header organises it better because the header simply says "cast" - and those notes are not a cast listing. I would assume that if either was unpalatable to you, you would have reverted it or started a discussion about it to achieve some kind of ''modus'', because we really should have a consistent look. Otherwise, it all just looks random. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 08:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
::{{yo|TheDoctorWho}} With the amount of planned goals it may be better to create a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals]] page similar to the task section on [[WP:USPREZ]]. It would be better centralized and easier to track instead of hunting down 5 different topics spread across as many seperate threads <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 04:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::That's not a bad idea honestly. If no one wants to beat me to it I'll try to start putting it together over the next week or so. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::If you do it before the newsletter goes out, we could probably mention it and call for suggestions <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::I can probably make topics for some of the fictional elements proposals (Such as alien species and companions) should this proposal go through. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 22:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Explain how a companion topic would go? <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 01:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::: {{ping|OlifanofmrTennant}} I'd imagine something like this:
{{Featured topic box||count=20|image=|imagesize=100px|lead={{icon|Unknown}} [[Companion (Doctor Who)]]|column1=:{{icon|List}} ''[[List of Doctor Who spin-off companions]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Susan Foreman]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Ian Chesterton]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Barbara Wright]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Vicki (Doctor Who)]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Steven Taylor]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Dodo Chaplet]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Ben and Polly]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Jamie McCrimmon]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Victoria Waterfield]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Zoe Heriot]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Liz Shaw]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Jo Grant]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Sarah Jane Smith]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Harry Sullivan]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Leela]]''|column2=:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[K-9 (Doctor Who)]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Romana (Doctor Who)]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Adric]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Nyssa (Doctor Who)]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Tegan Jovanka]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Vislor Turlough]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Peri Brown]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Mel Bush]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Ace (Doctor Who)]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Grace Holloway]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Rose Tyler]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Adam Mitchell]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Jack Harkness]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Mickey Smith]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Donna Noble]]''|column3=:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Martha Jones]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Astrid Peth]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Wilfred Mott]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Amy Pond]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Rory Williams]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[River Song]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Clara Oswald]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Nardole]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Bill Potts]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Graham O'Brien]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Ryan Sinclair]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Yasmin Khan]]''
:{{icon|Unknown}} ''[[Ruby Sunday]]''}}
(Ignore the fact they're all classed "Unknown," I am too busy to check their individual rankings rn)


Obviously would need to include spin-off Companions. I'd imagine a few characters might be considerable here too such as [[Sara Kingdom]] and [[Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart]] but I chose not to include anyone whose status was debatable for the time being. Either way, I do hope this helps visualize what I mean. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 02:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
== Police box image ==


:OKay, I wasnt thinking of all companions classed in a single article but I think it works. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 02:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I found a good police box image, which I think is an image of a toy, but it looks great. Now, it needs a lot of work, such as transparency added so that it can go anywhere, however I haven't uploaded it here yet because I wanted your opinion first as to whether or not we can use it everywhere we need. The things that I like most about it is that it is square and is on a neutral background. It can be found [http://www.xecu.net/fantasy/wiki/dwrespolicebox.jpg here]. - [[User:Lady Aleena|LA]] @ 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Pokelego999}} though this gave me an idea for something like.
::{{Featured topic box |
| title = Sixth Doctor
| lead = {{icon|?}} [[Sixth Doctor]]
| count = 7
| column1 =
: {{icon|C}} [[Colin Baker]]
: {{icon|Start}} [[Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures]]
: {{icon|C}} "[[A Fix with Sontarans]]"
| column2 =
: {{icon|C}} "[[The Twin Dilemma]]"
: {{icon|C}} [[Doctor Who season 22]]
: {{icon|B}} [[Doctor Who season 23]]
| column3 =
: {{icon|B}} [[Peri Brown]]
: {{icon|C}} [[Mel Bush]]
}}
::Would this work as a topic? <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::: {{ping|OlifanofmrTennant}} would the Sixth Doctor's individual episodes, as well as [[Colin Baker]] need to be included in this topic? [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 04:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{yo|Pokelego999}} Colin Baker maybe the individual episodes no. I included TWD because its the only season 21 episode to have 6. Another possible inclusion would be his [[Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures|audio range]]? <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]] I can see the audio range being viable. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 04:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|OlifanofmrTennant|Pokelego999}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals]] now exists. Do we want to continue this discussion there? Either on that talk page or under the specific headers? Feel free to add any further ideas of your own. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
::There should be a link to the page from somewhere besides this thread. Any ideas? <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]] Perhaps in the "Organization" section? [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)


== TFL or TFA? ==
:I've taken the liberty to add a transparent background layer. The image works quite well it is resized. I've uploaded the full size [http://static.flickr.com/62/221634838_9813e92071_o.png onto my Flickr account]. Can we use this image for the Doctor Who Project? [[User:Liyster|Liyster]] 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


::It's a nice image, but I'm worried about fair use issues, particularly sourcing and copyright of the original image. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 03:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
and of the [[User:|]] [[ |]] [[:|]] :, August (UTC)


:I think it's a great idea honestly. [[Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_list/Submissions#Doctor_Who_Christmas_and_New_Year's_Specials|I already requested to have "List of ''Doctor Who'' Christmas and New Year's specials" displayed on the main page on 23 December of this year]]. Do we have any other FL's/FA's that haven't already been on the main page? For featured lists specifically, perhaps stuff for 22 November of this year or 24 March of next year would be good to coincide with the 61st anniversary of Classic Who and the 20th of New Who? Featured articles appear every day and can be suggested at [[WP:TFAR]]. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Source: The Who Shop International, Doctor Who, Toys & Models, Britannia Police Box Model Dark
::Possibly [[Sydney Newman]] for the 61st anniversery <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 20:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
http://www.thewhoshop.com/catalogue2/product_info.php?cPath=1_167_107&products_id=740
:::{{yo|TheDoctorWho}} Newman has been nominated. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This resin model stands about 4" high and is highly detailed, including a "pull to open" panel and St. John's Ambulance symbol. Reminscent of the shape the First Doctor's TARDIS assumed.


== September Newsletter ==
Ah, and their helpful [http://www.thewhoshop.com/catalogue2/conditions.php Conditions of Use page] states "Put here your Conditions of Use information." so that's Terms of Use sorted. ;-)


{{ping|Pokelego999|OlifanofmrTennant}} If you two (or anyone else who wishes to write) are still interested in getting out a newsletter quarterly newsletter, it's about that time to start planning the next one. Do either of you two have any particular areas you want to cover? The continued progress towards Good/Featured Articles/Topics/Lists, the potential/needed replacement of Doctor Who News, and the improvement of our fictional element articles may be good places to start. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
More seriously, their helpful information page says " Any queries please telephone (+44) 0 20 8471 2356 or email info@thewhoshop.co.uk ". Maybe they'd be willing to release rights to the image in exchange for a link back, i.e. [[Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat]].
[[User:TransUtopian|TransUtopian]] 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


:@[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]] I'd say those three things are probably the best to cover. We should also probably mention [[The War Between the Land and the Sea]]'s announcement in the lead of the Newsletter given it's a series related announcement, though since no article is intended to exist for a while we can probably just keep it to a mention there. As for who's covering what, I can probably cover the fictional elements proposals given I myself started that discussion. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 04:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:You can ask, but even then I'm not sure that'd be good enough to fall under GDFL. Remember, the [[WP:FU]] criteria are very, very strictly enforced these days. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/2024/September|I've got a draft for the newsletter going here]], no rush, perhaps a deadline of the 15th for the respective months that we send out a letter? That gives us two weeks. I can take on The War Between the Land and the Sea mention as well as whatever Oli doesn't want to cover. We have a draft article for the spin-off and given that filming has recently begun, it likely actually won't be long before we move it, if we follow [[WP:NTV]]. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]] would it be possible to change the formatting from three to four headlines in order to cover the two subjects currently there, as well as Doctor Who News and the Good/Featured Content? [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{partially done}} I added the additional section headers. We can perfect the exact place of the column split once the sections are finalized before sending it out. Depending on how long the remaining sections end up being, one of the shorter ones could probably be scooched over to column two to make them look more evenly split. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Should we have a section for articles we have been working on that we are angling for future GA? [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 01:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
::::That's our goal! It just hasn't been written yet. Feel free to hop in and add to it if you want, otherwise one of the other three with us will add the content soon. {{smiley}} [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 03:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:TheDoctorWho|TheDoctorWho]], @[[User:Pokelego999|Pokelego999]], @[[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]], umm, the newletter hadn't been changed in the last week and a half, so I added to it a bit (and added my name to the contributors). Is the deadline moved, or has the pan changed from it beinhg quarterly? [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 10:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] I don't think the deadline's shifted, but I'd assume it's down to some of us having been busy recently. I'll do more work on it later if the others permit it.
::::::I suppose a question in general: What should we write for the recent deletions? Just notify their existence, or should we include some form of message along with it? (You can help by adding sources..., or something similar) [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 15:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I intended on polishing up anything else that was left before sending it out tonight. (I'm personally in the central time zone so there's still about 10 hours left of the "15th" for myself.) If either of you want to add to it before then, please do. For that section, I'd definitely reccomend adding a neutral note about contributing to the deletion discussion or the article itself. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I added that section before commting to varios projects. Due to a few personal things I feel I have to scale down the amount of committed projects I have on wikipedia so I do have to step away from the newsletter <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 01:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The newsletter has been {{sent}}. Pleasure working with you all again. For the time being, we'll keep planning on having the next issue out by December 15. [[User:TheDoctorWho|<span style="color:#0000ff;">'''The'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff">'''Doctor'''</span><span style="color:#0000ff;">'''Who'''</span>]] [[User talk:TheDoctorWho|(talk)]] 04:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


== Did anyone else know this existed? ==
==Excessive summary length==


I have just found this link, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode citations]], under the "What do we include?" section of the main page, subheading "Canon". The sentence went like this, and the bolded word was the link: {{xt|In practice, anything from the televised stories need not be sourced or distinguished, although the relevant episodes should be referenced (with '''citations''' to the appropriate episodes or serials).}}. Could we do anything with this page, perhaps advertise it better, or has it become obsolete? [[User:Mr Sitcom|'''Mr Sitcom''']] ([[User talk:Mr Sitcom|'''talk''']]) 01:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
As per [[WP:WAF]], I'm concerned that a number of articles - the new series more flagrantly than the older stuff - are written primarily as in-universe plot summaries, with long, unsorted trivia sections that often include information of considerably more encyclopedic value than what comes above.


:@[[User:Mr Sitcom|Mr Sitcom]] I feel the content is useful. I've used this template many times before, but had no clue about the page. Admittedly not sure what should be done with this though. Some of the content is useful but part of it is very outdated. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we should seriously reconsider our article formatting to offer a more encyclopedic structure - shorter summaries, more real-world information, and a wholesale abolition of fannish trivia ("The Doctor mentions being on the front lines of the Time War when Arcadia fell. The planet Arcadia was mentioned in the novel Deceit by Peter Darvill-Evans. Like all spin-off media, its canonicity in relation to the television series is unclear.")
::Thank you for the reply. Perhaps we should leave it in the "to do later" pile for now? [[User:Mr Sitcom|'''Mr Sitcom''']] ([[User talk:Mr Sitcom|'''talk''']]) 14:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


== Category:Time Hunter ==
I recognize that this breaks the standard of other television series articles. On the other hand, we've clearly taken the initiative and lead in developing FA-quality articles on fictional universes, and I think we're in a unique position among the fiction-wikiprojects to start a serious reform of the episode articles to get them away from the fanguide articles they currently are. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello everyone, I happened to stumble across [[:Category:Time Hunter]] today, and was wondering what everyone else thinks about it? The ''Time Hunter'' series itself is a series of ''Doctor Who'' spin-off novellas. I don't know if there's any good reason for this category specifically to exist, especially considering these already exist:
:I agree that we should reformat our articles for a more explicitly out-of-universe perspective as [[WP:WAF]] suggests, and that our summaries should be ''much'' shorter. However, I'm not certain that the adoption of an out-of-universe perspective necessarily entails "a wholesale abolition of fannish trivia" — if you read the examples at [[WP:WAF]], several of them include information that could easily be characterized as "fannish trivia". I think that we actually do a decent job of noting the source of all information (well, better than a lot of fiction wiki-projects) and even though the constant repetition of the "unclear canonicity" notice can get tedious, I think it serves an important function. It draws the reader's attention to the out-of-universe perspective by saying "by the way, this is something out of a novel, not something from the real world."


* [[Time Hunter|''Time Hunter'']], an article which already lists & links to every specific book that the category lists.
:That said, I definitely agree that we should have more real-world information. One place to start could be to include a section for ratings on each episode/serial's page. I'm sure there are good resources at OG and elsewhere for this information. I've also suggested in the past that it would be good to have a brief summary of critical responses to episodes/serials, like Howe and Stammers do in ''The Television Companion'' (but without copying from that work!). In short, although I agree that the balance of our articles probably leans too much towards the fictional, I'd rather remedy that by adding real-world content than by removing references to fiction. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
* [[:Category:Doctor Who novellas]]: a category that already lists individual novellas based on ''Doctor Who'', including most if not all novellas in the ''Time Hunter'' series
* [[:Category:Doctor Who spin-offs]]: a category listing media associated with ''Doctor Who'' (in my opinion, based on what little I know about the ''Time Hunter'' series, these should be categorized as spin-offs but currently aren't).
* [[:Category:Telos Publishing books]]: which includes a list of all of the individual books published by the publishing group that published ''Time Hunter''; notably, all of the books published are related to ''Doctor Who''.
* [[:Category:Telos_Publishing]]: a category about everything that Telos Ltd. has published (all related to ''Doctor Who'').
* [[Telos Doctor Who novellas|Telos ''Doctor Who'' novellas]]: an article listing all of the ''Doctor Who'' novellas that Telos Ltd. has published. This list does not include the ''Time Hunter'' series in its list, as this article makes the case that there's a difference between "''Doctor Who'' novellas": novellas published specifically with ''Doctor Who'' characters; and "''Time Hunter'' novellas": novellas in the ''Time Hunter'' series which include elements and references to ''Doctor Who'', but only feature spin-off characters. (Let me know your opinions on this as well if you'd like).
* [[Lists of books based on Doctor Who|Lists of books based on ''Doctor Who'']]: a list including the Telos Doctor Who novellas, but again, not the Time Hunter novellas (although I believe there could be a case to include them).


Anyhow, that's everything I could find! Just based on the amount of categories that already exist that I believe already cover the topic of the [[:Category:Time Hunter]], I find it to be a little redundant, but please let me know your thoughts! Thanks :) [[User:Garriefisher|Garriefisher]] ([[User talk:Garriefisher|talk]]) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
::My concern with fannish trivia is the slippery slope to original research. Noting that a place called Arcadia appeared in a probably non-canon spin-off novel over a decade ago seems to me at least to cross from useful information to fan speculation. Again, though, I think the most important thing here is to do away with the notion that anything that isn't summary needs to go into trivia. Especially with the new series, when interviews with writers and production staff are plentiful, we ought to be able to have lots of sections that deal in good depth with things other than the plot of the episode. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


:I feel there's enough for separation from the other categories here, but I feel the Time Hunter series is already dubiously notable as is. We should probably look into the notability of these subjects more extensively. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::There's also [[Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles]] - though it's not yet a formal guideline. [[User:Percy Snoodle|Percy Snoodle]] 12:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::I don't know much at all about the ''Time Hunter series'', but just a general scan through references, sources, articles outside of Wikipedia, etc. leads me to believe that at the very least, the individual articles for each book should be compiled into one page. I can't find any reason for them to be listed separately.
::For the ''Time Hunter'' article itself, I've only been able to find a few sources:
::* Telos Publishing Ltd.'s own [https://telos.co.uk/shop/time-hunter-novellas/time-hunter-collection/ website], which is non-independent (and currently the most used source in the individual articles)
::* [https://www.worldswithoutend.com/novel.asp?ID=9131 Worlds Without End], which only includes information about [[The Cabinet of Light|''The Cabinet of Light'']] as well as information about Telos Publishing.
::* [https://thetimescales.com/Story/story.php?audioid=2050 The Time Scales], which also only includes information about ''The Cabinet of Light.''
::* [https://www.doctorwhoreviews.altervista.org/Time%20Hunter.htm Doctorwhoreviews], an independent review website for plenty of Doctor Who content.
::* [https://www.timelash.com/tardis/list.php?Time-Hunter-novellas The TARDIS library], which only offers brief blurbs (usually from the books cover jackets) & publishing date.
::* The books themselves, which I don't have access to & don't want to spend money on at the moment.
::Another point is that when searching about the ''Time Hunter'' series, there is a more popular young adult book series, ''The Time Hunter''s by Carl Ashmore, that pushes results about Telos' ''Time Hunter'' series to page 3-4 of results, even in Google Books. That's all I researched for now, but just based on my understanding, I don't believe the individual articles meet [[WP:GNG]] & should be reconsidered as either being removed or consolidated into the main [[Time Hunter|''Time Hunter'']] series article. Then again, I'm not an expert or anything, this is just simply my understanding.
::*
::[[User:Garriefisher|Garriefisher]] ([[User talk:Garriefisher|talk]]) 05:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::If the series has so few results, it may be more worthwhile to bundle AfD the entire series. I'll probably do a bit of searching later today though to see if the series can't be verified in some way, but as of right now the individual articles should definitely be killed. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 12:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Some of the individual book articles are short and could just be [[WP:BLAR]]ed to the series article. A couple of the individual book articles have more content and I suggest warrant individual consideration and maybe merging content to the series article or to the authors’ articles. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry I'm late to replying to this, life is hard. But in terms of importance, if any of the book articles were to be kept, the most important is [[The Cabinet of Light|''The Cabinet of Light'']]. It's the only novel in the series that actually directly involves the Doctor & other established Doctor Who characters. The rest of the series is technically a spin-off of ''The Cabinet of Light''. If we feel like TCoL warrants its own article, that makes sense - I personally think just merging the rest into a single article would make a lot of sense if everyone else is good with that? [[User:Garriefisher|Garriefisher]] ([[User talk:Garriefisher|talk]]) 00:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


==Cleanup ==
::::That's a good point, Percy, but that essay/proposed guideline suggests that the content of trivia sections should be integrated into sections of related categories, rather than eliminated entirely. I agree that getting rid of "trivia" sections is probably a good goal, but I'm just not convinced that all the ''information'' in them needs to be removed. I think that cases like Phil's Arcadia example can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps we have set the bar for inclusion too low.—[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (split by Percy Snoodle)


I have been looking through the stub articles and there seem to be many articles which lack notability, and should be deleted, redirected or merged together. I have been listing them [[User:DoctorWhoFan91/sandbox|here]], and was wondering if anyone would like to help- they could be listed for AfD or otherwise as everyone wishes. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Oh, I definitely think we should keep most of the content, but we could really do with formatting it in some way other than as a [[WP:LAUNDRY|laundry list]] and moving it into its own part of the article. A while back someone had the idea of standard sections for things like broadcast information; perhaps that could be looked into again? (actually, I think it was Brian Olsen, who's joined this discussion below) [[User:Percy Snoodle|Percy Snoodle]] 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


:@[[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]], I see that you have been putting a lot of articles lacking [[WP:NBOOK]] to AfD, so just pinging you here, as I have been creating a list of them. (Also, I have just proposed a bunch of articles for AfD, so it'll be good to participate in the deletion discussion.) There is a article alert section, btw on the project page, so you can see GAN and AfD and other alerts there. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 20:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::On a related note, if we do raise the bar, we should take care at the same time to have a campaign of education for our fellow editors who may not follow this discussion. We've all seen the unfortunate results when an enthusiastic newbie gets his contributions reverted, cut back or "edited mercilessly". While it's true that such merciless editing is an inevitable part of Wikipedia (and mentioned every time you edit, below the text-insertion box), most new editors aren't prepared for the practice of it. Perhaps we could have a template we could place on an editor's user talk page when a good-faith addition is removed or seriously rewritten? If we're going to undergo a major renovation campaign, I think it's important to publicize it and explain it as many times as is necessary to minimize ruffled feathers. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::I would propose just BLARing the books. Their lack of notability is relatively assured and I don't think anyone's objected to any of them being redirected prior. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, a lot of them have a 'lacks notability' template, so like I would BLAR them in a few days, just trying to see what response similar AfDs get though, before I do that. I'm not sure about BLARing those without templates though, and I have also been listing audios, which should probably be merged into new/existing articles. Until then, I'll just keep trying to find more such articles and listing them. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 14:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::BLAR is for uncontroversial removals. Given the unanimous discussion toward redirecting these books so far, it shouldn't be an issue so long as you do a valid BEFORE beforehand. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:As someone who did some extensive cleanup a while ago, I'm very much down to help. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 12:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! You can help list more articles, looking at all the stubs is not interesting at all lol; or add a table or atleast 1-2 lines of summaries at the Faction Paradox page section, where the listed books are present. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 14:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


All of the 42 articles in ''Category:Bernice Summerfield audio plays'' should be deleted or merged and redirected; I would do it but I have been doing it for other articles and it is exhausting (though most of it is just copy and pasting the same couple of sentences), so I'll get back to doing it after like a week's time. Any help will be good.
Just wanted to add my wholehearted support for moving the info from trivia into the main body of the articles. I've tried to begin this with the original series, although I've only gotten through the first few serials (starting with "An Unearthly Child", I've gotten up to "The Time Meddler," I think). Where appropriate, I've been adding sections called "Production," "Broadcast and releases" and "In print." This was just meant to be a start, though - most of the sections are pretty skimpy, as I've only moved trivia items and haven't yet added new content. (And I won't be at all offended if someone comes up with better names for the sections.) --[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


{{ping|Pokelego999|TheDoctorWho|OlifanofmrTennant|Alex_21|JustAnotherCompanion}} this will probably go unseen otherwise, and I have seen you all active on this WikiProject, so pinging here; I also wanted to ask if and where we should put this, so that people can see this and help if they want. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 08:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:Those look like great names to me. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


:@[[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] Per your request, I've redirected all Bernice Summerfield stories into [[Bernice Summerfield]], barring [[Oh No It Isn't!]] given its AfD. If possible, I would suggest trying to improve this article soon, as right now it's covering the character when it's more about her associated series. For the time being, I'm going to remove the cyclical redirect links from the Summerfield article. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 14:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::At this point, I have no problems with reorganising the "Trivia" or "Notes" sections into their own sections where it makes sense for it them to be organised together; it's the stray points that may or may not be suitable for inclusion. One of the things I know the Wikipedia pages have been useful for are fanfic writers, who need the pointers and connections to other stories in the expanded canon, which is where stuff like Arcadia comes in. Granted, this is not necessarily a big segment of an encyclopedia-reading audience, but this should be kept in mind that connections to other stories are not meaningless.
::I actually meant merged and redirected, because if we are redirecting, we should probably give some data about it at least, but this is fine too, thanks; I will improve it soon, I noticed even it has a fails [[WP: GNG]] tag. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] There wasn't much content to merge admittedly beyond basic plot information, but that is not a difficult task, and I believe it would be best to do so under a focused effort to revamp the Bernice Summerfield article. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 17:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::::True, the edit summaries would have been long and would have required more edits; it's good that you redirected, or I would have used the longer method probably, thanks. Plus the Bernice Summerfield article needs a lot of work, so I would have required looking at lots of sources. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 18:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:Many of the early audio story and book articles created in the early '00's can probably all be redirected. It's been something I've been meaning to do for the Big Finish productions for a while. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 01:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
::Theres maybe a small handful of stories that have notability. Off the top of my head I belive [[Sirens of Time]] I think has just enough sources to survive. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 02:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I think most of the Dr Who and related books, audios and comics do not warrant individual articles and are better merged into series articles or maybe sometimes author articles, but there are a few that are of more note, were more significant and do have better sourcing. Editors should have some regard for [[WP:BEFORE]]. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 15:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Honestly, I have been looking at the stubs related to audios and books, and most of them either have or should have a "fails [[WP:GNG]]" tag; like I have probably looked at a hundred of them, and its 75% tag, 20% should be tagged, and 5% okay-ish. Wikipedia was very different two decades ago; the WikiProject will probably be down 150-200 more articles if we redirect/delete/merge all the articles that should never have been articles in the first place. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)


== Disruptive editing on [[The Doctor]] and [[The Fugitive Doctor]] ==
::As for the long summaries, if there is a general consensus to cut them down, I again have no problems with following consensus. However, I should also note that I personally prefer a longer summary style so that I can quick reference stuff instead of having to grab for my DVD — the Doctor Who Reference Guide is not as current as we are when it comes to this. What I'm saying is that I think the longer summaries should remain, but I support the restructuring and rationalising of the trivia lists into main body sections where appropriate. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 00:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I have only recently stumbled on this spate of disruptive editing that has been taking place for a few days. I'm drawing the wider WikiProject's attention to this issue in the hope that we don't need to take it to [[WP:DRN|DRN]] or [[WP:ANI|ANI]].<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>{{u|Blob02}} has been repeatedly making [[WP:REFB|unreferenced]] and non-[[WP:MOS|MOS]]-compliant edits to [[The Doctor]] and [[The Fugitive Doctor]]. They have been reverted and warned on talk pages (let me know if I have missed any):<ul><li>{{slink|Talk:The Doctor#Persistent incorrect editing}}</li><li>{{slink|User talk:Blob02#September 2024}}</li><li>{{slink|User talk:Irltoad#Deletion of my supernatural addition}}</li><li>{{slink|User talk:DoctorWhoFan91#What I wrote on dr who isn't incorrect. If the style is too fan like then help me rewrite it to be accurate but keep the same contents}}</li></ul><br/>Blob02, you have only been here for six days so I wouldn't expect you to have read every single policy and guideline, but the ones you have been consistently breaking are:<ul><li>[[WP:Verifiability|Verifiability]] – A '''core policy''', this means you '''must''' provide references for any claims, and format them correctly</li><li>[[WP:No original research|No original research]] – A '''core policy''', this means you do not insert your own interpretations if they are not backed up by reliable secondary sources</li><li>[[WP:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] – The way we write and lay out our articles to ensure consistency and an encyclopaedic tone. You also need to follow the style advice for:<li style="margin-left:2em">[[WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/Style advice|Doctor Who]]</li><li style="margin-left:2em">[[MOS:TV|TV]]</li><li style="margin-left:2em">[[MOS:WAF|Fictional elements]] (e.g. characters)</li></li><li>[[WP:Consensus|Consensus]] – A '''core policy''', when experienced editors tell you how we do things here, you listen to us and do not repeatedly break the rules</li></ul><br/>Blob02, I hope that we can resolve this and help you make constructive contributions here, but if you repeatedly show that you are not going to follow the rules and guidelines, then the next step is to consider a [[WP:CBAN|community ban]]. I really don't want to have to go there.<span id="ClaudineChionh:1728096342044:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Doctor_Who" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]])</small> 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::I think both fanfic reference and an in-depth reference guide are tremendously worthwhile, but would probably be better suited to a transcluded Doctor Who wiki than a general encyclopedia - something more akin to [[Memory Alpha]]. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|1=<small>Notified: [[User talk:Blob02]], [[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91]], [[User talk:Irltoad]], [[User talk:TheDoctorWho]]. '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]])</small> 02:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)</small>}}<!-- Template:Notified -->
:what's the problem? [[User:Blob02|Blob02]] ([[User talk:Blob02|talk]]) 17:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::The problem is you are not reading all the resources that have provided to tell you why you are being [[WP:Disruptive]]; you keep arguing and making the same edits again and again. We can see you are trying to be helpful, but you are unintentionally wasting other editors' time. [[WP:OR]] does not mean something is false, just that no reliable source has been shown to say so; a shift to the supernatural relates to the show, not the character of the Doctor; and so on and so on, as you have been repeatedly told. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:Blob02|Blob02]]: [[special:Diff/1249651135|this edit summary]] is disappointing. "Team effort" doesn't mean you insert random stuff with citation needed tags and expect others to find the citations. It means '''you do the work''', just as everyone else does the work when they add new content.<span id="ClaudineChionh:1728182605611:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Doctor_Who" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]])</small> 02:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
::[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Blob02 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: )|Formally reported.]] I'm sorry it has come to this.<span id="ClaudineChionh:1728184420453:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNWikiProject_Doctor_Who" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]])</small> 03:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
:As someone who has been checking the recent changes to the articles of this WikiProject for the last few days, I don't think [[User:Blob02]] is going to listen; most of his mainspace edits have been reverted, the same changes again and again, by many-many different editors. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
*Blob02 has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABlob02 indef blocked] following [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Blob02 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)|this report at WP:ANEW]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


== Addressing the Bernice Summerfield Situation ==
::::That's a point, but the quality control on the TARDIS Index File is sorely lacking when it comes to this, and they include ''everything'', which is even too far to the extreme. I'm not suggesting we descend to the depths of fancruft by any means - the bar should be raised, obviously, but I don't think it needs to be raised too high. What we have now I think is a good median: it is comprehensive, yet not to the point where useful information gets lost in the morass - the only thing that stands to be really improved is the way we distinguish real-world information from the cross-referenced trivia. I think this can also be done by increasing the amount of real-world information rather than taking away the fan stuff. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Given recent discussions, the [[Bernice Summerfield]] article has kind of become an elephant in the room. With so many articles having been dumped into the article in such a short span of time, it's... not really in a good state. And then there's articles like [[The Adventuress of Henrietta Street]] or [[Just War (novel)]] that can't be merged effectively even though they're just a plot summary and one-two paragraphs of minor dev info because of how badly formatted the main article is. In its current state, the article is unwieldy and not really covering all the information it needs to, and I doubt that can go un-addressed for longer, especially as we downsize more trivial articles. I'd normally tackle it myself once I have time, but I think this is an article outside the scope of what one person can handle, especially given it's covering ''every'' piece of Summerfield media to have ever released. This is something I feel needs some kind of group attack in order to finally resolve.
::I agree with Khaosworks - keep the summaries and rework the trivia into proper sections. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


The article needs a more condensed form of covering these books, while also covering information associated with them, such as author information, plot summary, and any development history they have. A character table should likely be implemented to cover the list currently in the article, and the audio stories need a similar treatment to the books, but without COPYVIO plot summaries. This is mostly tedious work, but it needs to be done to ensure the article's quality and readability. Beyond this, I'm not sure what else should be done, but I propose that we try to get at least a few editors on this in order to improve this article for any potential future use. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 22:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
== Userbox user categorization convention ==


:I kind of noticed that too; I was thinking of tackling it but I have never anything she featured in, so I decided to see if someone else might be more interested. My first suggestion would be split the audios into a different article; that will halve the size, and then start finding the best way to tackle how the BS article can be reorganized (suggestion-probably starting with the characters- I mostly just dumped the info when I merged that into the article, bcs I couldn't differentiate what to keep and what not to). [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello all...I just noticed that the three userboxes related to a favorite mechanical enemy of the Doctor categorize the user of the userbox into a companion category. Well, to me that is just silly. I think that all of the Doctor userboxes, with the exception of the WikiProject one, should all categorize the users into Category:Wikipedians who like Doctor Who. I am going to change out the categories on those three userboxes and CfD the one category already created by one of those three above. Your thoughts? - [[User:Lady Aleena|LA]] @ 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::@[[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] I feel the books would need splitting as well, in that case, but at the same time we'd not be left with much at the main Summerfield article. If we focus on going the split route, we'd need sources to verify the main franchise's notability in the first place, and discuss other aspects of the series beyond listing what is a part of it. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Perhaps, though I'm sure we can expand the article and also verify the franchise's notability- there are sources even for the more obscure Doctor Who content, and despite the EighthDA book and audios having separate articles, the [[Eighth Doctor]] article still has data for a huge article. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::::To be fair, the Eighth Doctor is heavily lacking in citations, and is additionally not representing an entire franchise of his own accord. Summerfield's article doubling as a franchise article makes it so finding sources will likely prove to be more vital for the article's continued usage than Eight. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 21:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::From nominations DW novels to AfD, I have learned that you can put something up for deletion, and some nerd(affectionately) will find enough citations to keep it{{jokes}}; more seriously, I am sure we will find citations, I'll look when I get the time(probably a week or two). [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 10:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)


== Doctor Who: The Complete History ==
:I had thought that the userbox wars resolved against "Wikipedians who" categories in general. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


To ascertain this fact for the WikiProject: Which copies of Doctor Who: The Complete History do we have on-hand? I've just completed work on [[Mel Bush]], but feel as though the Complete History has a lot of information that would benefit her article's developmental information. While I do not expect the specific copies focusing on her to be on-hand, I did figure I would ask here in order for future reference. To be able to easily request information from it from other editors on the chance we know someone has access to a copy of The Complete History that we need would be greatly beneficial overall. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
== Expanding "Notes/Trivia" to "Production" ==


:I'm fairly certain all of them are on the [[Internet Archive]]. unfourtantely my current computer struggles to load pdfs so I struggle to read the books. <b>[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]</b> 02:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I was just thinking, and it seems that the Notes/Trivia sections as they are now can be expanded into well-written sections, such as Production, Continuity, Background, etc. In other words they're notes ''for'' sections that could be written. Given the fact that all this information can be drawn together from DVD production notes, DWM and all the books written (e.g. '''Doctor Who: The Early Years'''), it wouldn't be a stretch to collate all this data and present it formally. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
::@[[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OlifanofmrTennant]] I didn't notice this when you first shared it, but I'm fairly certain it's an unofficial upload, so I'm not sure if we'd even be allowed to use that at all. Would it be possible to ascertain the verifiability of the uploader, or if that upload is even allowed on the Archive in the first place? [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 14:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::There's nothing preventing us from using them for research purposes, but we should absolutely not be linking to them per [[WP:COPYVIOEL]]. I removed several of these links, but it seems they continued to be added afterwards. <span class="nowrap">– [[User:Rhain|<span style="color: #008;">'''''Rhain'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] <small>([[he/him]])</small></span> 22:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, I saw some of the links had been delinked; I had linked them bcs I saw it on a few articles, didn't know they violated a guideline. Thank you for removing them. [[User:DoctorWhoFan91|DoctorWhoFan91]] ([[User talk:DoctorWhoFan91|talk]]) 17:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:Additionally, I personally bought the ones with Hell Bent/Husbands of River Song and Power of the Daleks/The Highlanders/The Underwater Menace/The Moonbase. [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Potential new source? ==
:That is probably the best idea I've ever heard about this Notes/Trivia business. --<font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font><sup><font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font></sup> 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I've discovered that [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006q2x0/episodes/player?page=1 BBC One's website] for Doctor Who contains cast lists, broadcast dates and times, and links to concept art and behind the scenes content for the revived era, going from Rose until Power of the Doctor. Would this be useful for citations? It's primary, but definitely very useful for some usually hard to find information. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::Makes sense to me. As the project's resident continuity geek, I particularly like the notion of a separate "continuity" section for a lot of the "fannish trivia" — as long as it's presented with an out-of-universe perspective, it makes sense to have a place for it that separates it from the "real-world" considerations that should be the primary focus of the article. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


:[https://www.doctorwho.tv/stories Doctor Who webste's Stories section] also provides similar information, if it's worth anything. -- [[User:Alex 21|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#02B">Alex_</span><span style="font-size:smaller;color:#02B">21</span>]]<sub>&nbsp;[[User talk:Alex 21|<span style="font-size:xx-small;color:#009">TALK</span>]]</sub> 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Just reviewed a few articles to get a feel for which one to start on, and lo-and-behold someone's already started doing this (before I even mentioned it). LOL. Guess a lot of us are on the same page. Anyway, we should continue on this track. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::@[[User:Alex 21|Alex 21]] it might be worth linking both then. Either way both seem highly usable. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 13:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I've added links to both and additionally also added ''The Complete History'' as a source for editors to look into. [[User:Pokelego999|Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999]] ([[User talk:Pokelego999|talk]]) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)


== Rankings to be used for reception sections ==
::::Which episodes? --<font color="00CD00">[[User:Thelb4|Thelb]]</font><sup><font color="FF8247">[[User talk:Thelb4|4]]</font></sup> 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'd thought I would pass on some rankings that can be used in reception sections for most episodes!
:::::See [[An Unearthly Child]] and [[The Daleks]]. Still need to expand the rest of the trivia for those though. [[User:DonQuixote|DonQuixote]] 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


*DWM polls
::::::I'm working on it - I'm also going to pare back the summary a bit - we can link to the DWRG for detailed plot summaries, I think, instead of writing our own, and that pushes us a bit more towards real encyclopedia and away from fan encyclopedia. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
**The Mighty 200 - this is from 2009 but all of the numbers are available in DWM 474 for the 50th, which...
**First 50 Years poll (2014) - I've got this issue actually (474). It breaks them down by the decade but also the full list. Hit me up for page numbers and such.
**60th anniversary - from what I understand these go by Doctor and are not broken down otherwise except maybe the top? I've basically been finding the screenshots/lists online and citing the magazine they are in.
*[https://gizmodo.com/every-single-doctor-who-story-ranked-from-best-to-wors-1468104049 Charlie Jane Anders ranking in 2015]
*[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/doctor-who-greatest-stories-episodes-ranked-best-worst/ Telegraph 60 best for 60 years] [https://web.archive.org/web/20231102163918/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/doctor-who-greatest-stories-episodes-ranked-best-worst/ Archive so you can read it]
*[https://gizmodo.com/greatest-doctor-who-cliffhangers-of-all-time-5625151 Charlie Jane Anders best cliffhangers]


Hope this helps!! Feel free to add more [[User:Glimmer721|Glimmer721]] ([[User talk:Glimmer721|talk]]) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::That would be me! Just wanted to pipe in that I'm (obviously) all for this, and if you want others' opinions on it, there's some more discussion on this topic above, at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Restructuring of serial articles|Restructuring of serial articles]] and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Excessive summary length|Excessive summary length]]--[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for sharing! I actually started working on a summary of the ''DWM'' rankings a while ago but never finished it; I've just [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode rankings|published it here]]. Hopefully it can work as an easy to find this information when writing episode articles. <span class="nowrap">– [[User:Rhain|<span style="color: #008;">'''''Rhain'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] <small>([[he/him]])</small></span> 05:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

== Plot Summaries ==

I can see that a consensus has emerged here around some issues but I want to make my position on plot summaries clear before any further pruning occurs. I can see no consensus around the dramatic trimming that has occurred on my description of ''[[The Daleks]]'' and I'd like a much fuller debate before this pattern continues. Indeed, the old copy for ''The Daleks'' was by no means particularly long compared to some plot summaries. As the composer of over 75 of these plot summaries for the classic series (that's half the total) I know they lack consistency - some are very detailed indeed, not all are broken into episodes - and I can accept an argument for standardisation. Over 6 months I've varied the lengths of summaries myself, but there have never been hard and fast rules in place. However, I'd rather a much fuller debate before people take the knife (or indeed expand) more existing copy. And I resent the term "fan encyclopedia" too: I didn't set the pattern, I've just applied it and there are other (and better) contributors who write in much more detail. A few comments in no way represents a full discussion. And for the record, after a huge amount of hard work by some of us over a very long time only ''[[The Robots of Death]]'' and ''[[Shada]]'' now lack a plot summary. Can we please take step back and have a proper debate that actually includes those of us whose work is being discarded so mercilessly? [[User:Litefoot|Litefoot]] 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm certainly not trying to insult anybody with my edits of the plot summaries. However, I think there are some serious issues here.
:#Plot summaries are necessarily written from an in-universe perspective, which is frowned upon.
:#Plot summaries duplicate the work of other resources.
:#Plot summaries are encyclopedically questionable,.
:#Detailed plot summaries make it difficult to integrate some information - things from [[The Daleks]] that were of tremendous importance about the story - that it's the first appearance of the Daleks and that it establishes the malfunctioning TARDIS trope - were buried in the old article. The natural place for them to go is in the summary, but when the summary is already written in such a detailed format, any information of high importance that is added to it gets buried in comparative trivialities.
:To be clear, I think that a fanwiki of Doctor Who would be quite useful, and would go a long way towards fixing the major problem with the DWRG, which is the slow pace at which it updates. However, I don't think a generalist encyclopedia is the place for this, and I think that it's silly for us to basically duplicate the effort of the DWRG in plot summaries when there's a huge amount of information that the DWRG does not cover, and that is more suitable to a general encyclopedia. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 18:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:Another point - when we include plot summaries, we need to think actively about what purpose they serve. Within the context of a general encyclopedia, an episode of a television series is not primarily a sequence of things that happened to imaginary people - it is a transmission that aired at a particular time, was created by particular people, and altered the gestalt that is the series in a particular way. This is manifestly different from the context of a fan encyclopedia - which is not a term I use perjoratively. In a fan encyclopedia, an episode is primarily a sequence of events that happened to characters. The difference, in essence, is this: a fan encyclopedia is interested primarily in what an episode is. A general encyclopedia is interested primarily in what an episode did. (Compare to biographic articles, where we mercilessly trim details that do not have a strong relation to what the subject is notable for) To use an example from [[The Daleks]], the sequence of events that comprised the attack on the Dalek city is ultimately of little interest, because it brings little to bear on the question of what the episode did. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

::You make a strong argument from your perspective, but such a radical new approach does need proper debate before it is rolled onward. I was mistaken before in describing it as editing: it is full-scale reconstruction and for a fundamentally different purpose than has been used for previous plot summaries. Even though I am sympathetic to some of the points you make, I can't help feeling that such radical change in purpose and content also veers on the subjective. Further, it can also be argued that some episodes "did" nothing: how would they be summarised in your vision? [[User:Litefoot|Litefoot]] 9:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I think the easiest way to answer this would be if you pointed me towards what you consider a potentially do-nothing episode, and I edited the page. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:I think the edits to ''The Daleks'' should be reverted as the summary is now far too short. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 09:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::I (obviously) strongly disagree - I think [[The Daleks]] has, starting with Brian's edit a month ago, gone from being a fine fan-encyclopedia article to a fine encyclopedia article. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::I really don't see why both a plot summary and in-universe discussion cannot exist on Wikipedia. Duplicating other sites' work isn't really an argument; by that token, Wikipedia shouldn't exist at all since there are other encyclopedias. It would certainly be wrong to go completely in-universe, but that's not the case here. We do talk, extensively in some cases, about the production and actors and so on: the two are very clearly demarcated. The two can exist side by side and should continue to do so. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 12:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, [[WP:WAF]] is pretty much 100% down on in-universe perspective, even existing side-by-side with out-of-universe. Hence my problem with the plot summaries, which, in their current form, are necessarily in-universe. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't see anything in [[WP:WAF]] that frowns on a side-by-side perspective, really. If it's wholly in-universe, sure, I can see the problem, but we don't do that. And with some exceptions, every thing is sourced properly, so the main objection, that of verifiability and non-original research, is addressed. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Though I'm not a member of this project, I'd like to mention I agree with using the Notes/Trivia as notes ot create new prose sections, but don't agree with trimming the summary to the extent ''The Daleks'' currently is. I've found following the episodic structure and having enough plot information to catch something I'd missed helpful in my viewing. And sometimes you have plot points not explained or mentioned differently at the DWRG. [[User:TransUtopian|TransUtopian]] 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::::It's useful, yeah - but is a general encyclopedia the place for it? I just looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica's online version. They merge virtually all fictional texts, including things like Moby Dick and The Odyssey - into their authors' articles, and do virtually no plot summary at all, and certainly not a "detailed" summary. Obviously being Wikipedia we have the means to have many more articles, but we ought not approach them from a fundamentally different perspective than other encyclopedias. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::But Wikipedia isn't just a general encyclopedia project. It has the potential to be much more, and it is: you have articles on popular culture which would never be covered in a general encyclopedia, articles on news events covered in much more depth than Britannica ever would. Not to put too fine a point on it: ''Doctor Who'' is a specialist subject. If we were truly to take the same approach as a general encyclopedia, nothing else should exist except the main article and everything else can be referred off-site or pointed to further reading - and the same goes for a large chunk of the television series projects as well.

:::::Ultimately, I'm questioning the wisdom of removing detail which is useful rather than expanding stuff to make it more so. It would leave the project articles rather threadbare. Once again, my position is that it is possible, and even desirable, to keep the longer summaries side by side with the out-of-universe information. Context is important. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I have to disagree. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, just one with no practical constraints on what it can include. But Britannica excludes plot summaries from virtually everything - not just from things it sees as more trivial. It excludes plot summaries from some of the most important works of literature in English. That seems to me a persuasive argument for what appropriate engagement is. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
::In trying to find a middle ground here, I looked over [[WP:WAF]] and read through some of the articles it lists as good examples (the main [[Doctor Who]] article being one!). The level of detail we've got in most of the plot summaries doesn't seem all that uncommon - look at, for example, [[The Lord of the Rings]]. But I think Phil's edit to [[The Daleks]] adds something worthwhile, and something that's included in those good examples, which is out-of-universe information (or as he put it, what the episode did, as opposed to what it is). Eliminating the trivia sections and bulking up the out-of-universe sections will go a long way towards justifying the length of the summary sections. Including out-of-universe info within the summary section will, I think, completely justify it.
::My one quibble though, Phil, is that you don't cite your out-of-universe info. Referring to the TARDIS malfunctioning as "a common trope in Doctor Who," and referring to the first episode cliffhanger as "memorable" is certainly self-evident, but still needs to be cited to avoid OR. I'm not throwing stones, though - if I remember correctly, I think you were incorporating former trivia items into the summary. I did the exact same thing, and I didn't look up citations for previously uncited material either! Still, I think with proper secondary sources, the type of additions you've made to [[The Daleks]] could be incorporated into the longer plot summaries. --[[User:Brian Olsen|Brian Olsen]] 16:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd happily support Khaosworks' suggestion for two types of section - there is room for both formats as they both provide radically different perspectives. In terms of article about an episode that potentially does nothing, I'd be interested to see what could be made of a story like ''[[Galaxy Four]]'' or ''[[Four to Doomsday]]''. I'm not against the inclusion of this new perspective, I just want to ensure some debate and to make sure that we don't lose existing strengths. If we could reach consensus aroudn a dual approach featuring both times of summary then I would happily participate in ensuring all articles met that agreed format and standard. We could also move on to agree a clearer mutual guidance on the length, format and content of conventional plot summaries. As yet I'm not persuaded of the case that both types should exist in the same summary, but I'm open to be convinced. --[[User:Litefoot|Litefoot]] 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

===New section for editing's sake===
I was away this weekend, and missed most of this conversation. I haven't delved deeply into the matter (doing things like investigating the conversation at WP:WAF's talk page), but I wanted to give my gut reaction.

I think the question we need to answer about detailed plot summaries is "How does the article benefit from having a detailed summary rather than a link to the summary at the DWRG?" I'm not sure what the answer to that question is yet, myself. On the one hand, the DWRG is a very good and useful resource, and I think it's pretty accurate. On the other hand, it is not editable, so if there are any inaccuracies or omissions there they are out of our control. I'm not sure what the copyright situation is there (I assume that the content is copyright Dominique Boies and Cameron Dixon, but I'm not sure), and we should consider the long view: will that site be accessible forever? Will it be available to downstream users? What about future non-web incarnations of Wikipedia?

Right now it seems like a link to the DWRG should satisfy any web user's need for a full episode summary, but we should consider whether that will always be the case. (It would probably also be good to compare some of the summaries there with the longer ones here, to see which are more accurate, better written, and so forth.)

In general, I support Khaosworks' more inclusionist approach — I tend to favor adding content over deletion. But I also favor improvements in presentation and style, which I think can and should be incorporated into any major revisions.

One last point: Phil calls for a ''Doctor Who'' fanwiki a couple of times above. Such a wiki does exist, [http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page here], but it's fairly skeletal (especially compared to, say, Memory Alpha). I edited there for a while before I became active here (I'm actually an admin there as well, although I haven't even edited that site since last year). I don't know what relations, if any, exist between here and there, but we might want to consider developing a relationship with that site, especially if we're about to delete a lot of content; rather than leaving it moldering and hidden in the page archives, it might be better to move it to the TARDIS Index File. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:I was actually pondering a general television episode summary WikiCity, which might also be an excellent place to put these and summaries from other shows as well - it would be a generally helpful resource, I think, instead of a DW-specific one. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 22:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::But that doesn't address the immediate issue, though. I also have my reservations about such a project because it's just another off-site issue to deal with rather than the idea of a basic one-stop shop; but that's just me. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:::I think a one-stop shop is, generally, a poor idea - or at least that a one-stop shop should be supplemented, for specialist topics, with good separate resources. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

::::That's a larger issue, and one that we won't resolve here.

::::I just noticed that the following was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=62941196&oldid=62677163 added] to [[WP:NOT]] last month:

:::::*'''Plot summaries''' - Wikipedia articles should not act '''solely''' as a summary of the plot of a work of fiction, but should offer summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article, or as part of a series of articles per [[Wikipedia:Article series]].

::::At some later point, someone changed "summarized plots" to "comprehensive, summarized plots", which I suppose is the issue at hand: should plots be comprehensive or not? It would be good if we could come to a consensus on that that reflects existing, stable policy rather than our individual concepts of what Wikipedia ''should'' be. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::I believe what it's saying is that comprehensive plot summaries should be accompanied by an out-of-universe perspective for notability and context. Short plot summaries arguably have less need of that context. What short and comprehensive comprise are subjective. [[User:TransUtopian|TransUtopian]] 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Valuable content should be incorporated into the article, not left to an external resource which may at some time go offline or change radically. I believe the detailed summaries are valuable to the content of the article over a brief one, and that they don't duplicate the work of the DWRG but supplement or add to them, as plot and character elements are highlighted differently by different writers.
::Looking at ''[[The Daleks]]'', I somewhat understand your desire to delegate some of the content elsewhere, as a CliffNotes version can be more easily understood by the casual reader, but I would argue that the extended summaries are much rarer and more valuable than shorter ones, that they contain useful information different from the DWRG and which should be easily accessible at a place least likely to go offline, and that they form a significant, well-written part of a proposed article structure with in & out-of-universe perspectives. [[User:TransUtopian|TransUtopian]] 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
:::The summaries here are also far shorter than those on DWRG, even if they are longer than on other sites. It's not like for like.[[User:Litefoot|Litefoot]] 23:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

:I broadly agree with Phil Sandifer. We should have an out-of-universe perspective and summaries that are sufficiently short to be accessible. Lengthy summaries can be '''less''' useful if they drown the reader in detail. I support moving detailed plot summaries over to a Dr Who wiki. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

== Copyright matters ==

Hi, folks. {{user|Deej30}} has been editing articles about ''Doctor Who'' actors, and some of his additions have raised copyright concerns. I wanted to give the Project a heads-up, and ask for some help in going through his recent contributions to check for other problems. Two issues that I've noticed: some copyvio text added to [[Colin Baker]] (copied from [http://www.tv.com/colin-baker/person/3323/biography.html here]), and [[:Image:Eighth Doctor Publicity.jpg|this image]], which {{user|Genidealingwithfairuse}} was concerned about. I've put a better fair use rationale on the image, which Geni says should suffice — however, Geni also wondered whether Fox or Universal might have a share of the image copyright. Does anyone know about that for certain?

I don't think that Deej30 has any ill intentions, but we should make sure that his other recent contributions are kosher with regards to copyright. I'll try to look over some tonight, but it seems Deej30 was busy over the last few days. I'd appreciate some help. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

:Btw, that's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Eighth_Doctor_Publicity.jpg [[User:TransUtopian|TransUtopian]] 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

::Oops. My bad; fixed now. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

== PediaPress ==

PediaPress is a service that allows you to create a book out of selected Wikipedia articles. Is anyone interested in ordering a book of Doctor Who articles: [http://pediapress.com/order/kffjljvjccdcjsry/ http://pediapress.com/order/kffjljvjccdcjsry/].--[[User:bjwebb|Bjw]][[User:Bjwebb/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Bjwebb|bb]] <small>([[User talk:Bjwebb|talk]])</small> 06:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:The old link seems to have expired, so I've made a new one. If someone does order it then more copies can be produced, at a discount, with money going to the Wikimedia foundation.--[[User:bjwebb|Bjw]][[User:Bjwebb/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Bjwebb|bb]] <small>([[User talk:Bjwebb|talk]])</small> 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:Is anyone interested in buying a book, and if they are, could they publish it so that it can be sold at a discounted rate.--[[User:bjwebb|Bjw]][[User:Bjwebb/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Bjwebb|bb]] <small>([[User talk:Bjwebb|talk]])</small> 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Changes to Who articles ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Doctor_Who%2Farticles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&target=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Doctor_Who%2Farticles] for a list of changes to Doctor Who articles.--[[User:bjwebb|Bjw]][[User:Bjwebb/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Bjwebb|bb]] <small>([[User talk:Bjwebb|talk]])</small> 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:Nicely done! Thanks, Bjw! —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
::Fantastic resource, well done! —[[User:Litefoot|Litefoot]] 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== The Doctor's Personality ==

Hello I'm relativly new here, but I've been digging through the archives and I noticed that the Personality sections of the older series Doctors were once much longer than they are currently, and closer to the length of the ninth and tenth Doctors' personality section. It seems these changes were made by {{user|Aquanostra9}} and although "see discussion" was given as the edit summary the only discussion record I could find was just saying that the changes had been made, wthout any discussion. I would like to change them back so as to me more uniform through out the Doctor pages and thought it would be a good idea to see what others had to say before making such a drastic change. [[User:Quest4pi|Quest4pi]] 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
:I'm all for it, though we have to be aware of [[WP:OR]]. --[[User:Jamdav86|Jamdav86]] 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Sarah Jane Investigates, again ==

Hey, folks. RTD has confirmed the pilot for ''[[Sarah Jane Investigates]]'' in the latest ''Doctor Who Magazine'' (his full quote is now in the SJI article, if you're interested). Time to put it in the navbox, or not? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable to me, now that we can be reasonably sure that, at the very least, a pilot will air.--[[User:Sean Black|SB]] | [[User talk:Sean Black|T]] 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::If I may say so, woohoo! [[User:TransUtopian|TransUtopian]] 11:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::You may. Woo, and indeed hoo.

:::What about ''[[K-9 Adventures]]''? It's been announced, with press hoopla, but not scheduled, and it's been in development forever... —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:::And where should ''Rose Tyler: Earth Defender'' (commissioned by the BBC, but then abandoned—see RTD interview in latest ''[[Doctor Who Magazine]]'') be mentioned? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

::::[[Rose Tyler]], I should think. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

== [[User:Tim!/2006 in Doctor Who|2006 in Doctor Who]] ==

I created this as a sandbox, and wonder if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile exercise, or if it's a stupid idea and unutterable listcruft... ;) I'll move to main space if anyone else likes it is an idea. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm... I'm not entirely sure. My first instinct, honestly, was that it was a bit too narrow a topic, but then I had a look at [[:Category:2006]] and its subcats, and realized that it would be far from the only specialized almanac list. It's certainly no less deserving than, say, [[2006 in NASCAR]]! I'm not sure how active the project is, but perhaps you could ask at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Years|WikiProject Years]] to see if they've got any guidelines for articles of this kind. It might be better to get a non-Who-fan perspective. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I copied it over. --[[User:Jamdav86|Jamdav86]] 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

:I'm in two minds... Half of me thinks it's a bit much for Wikipedia, while the other half thinks it might at least keep people from over-doing it with ''Doctor Who'' stuff on the general "Years in television" pages. [[User:Angmering|Angmering]] 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

== Appearances list query ==

I'm working on the list of appearances for the Brigadier, and I've got a small question I'd like to throw out to the project. I've been including character appearances in original novels, but not novelizations (because they're just reworkings of a story told in another medium). But a few novelizations — specifically ''[[Downtime (Doctor Who)|Downtime]]'' and ''[[The Ghosts of N-Space]]'' — were released as part of the [[Virgin Missing Adventures]] series, as if they were original novels. Should they be listed under "novels" or not? I had listed ''Downtime'' twice on the [[Victoria Waterfield]] entry, but I wasn't sure about it; I'm even less sure vis-a-vis the Brigadier, who appeared in both. (It also seems odd to include ''The Ghosts of N-Space'', which was released as part of the Missing Adventures line, but exclude ''[[The Paradise of Death]]'', which was the last book published as part of the old Target Books novelization series; but it also feels a bit odd to exclude them.) What do other folks think? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

:Perhaps you could list them under the first medium they appeared in, e.g. radio for ''The Ghosts of N-Space'' then put after that "{novelisation by so-and-so)". --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

::I suppose... although "novelisation by so-and-so" could be read as suggesting that so-and-so didn't write the original, whereas in point of fact Barry Letts novelized his own radio scripts, and Marc Platt novelized his own script for ''Downtime''. Hmm... —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, for now I'm only including the ''Doctor Who Magazine'' comics in the list. Someone else can add the strips from the annuals, ''TV Comic'', etc. later if they want (or I might get around to it eventually). —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

== Citations in project articles ==

I've been looking at the formatting for citations in articles under the project's aegis, and I noticed that we're a bit inconsistent in how we cite things. For example, when citing news items from ''Doctor Who Magazine''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s "Gallifrey Guardian" section, I noticed that someone (was it Paul?) has been putting [[Clayton Hickman]] and Tom Spilsbury in the "author" field, which makes sense, but the actual news items aren't credited to anyone. Is this a problem? Similarly, we're not very consistent about whether to use {{tl|cite news}} or {{tl|cite web}} when we're citing newspaper stories — does this matter? Should we develop some project-wide standards about citation, or would that be a case of "[[Self-Reliance|a foolish consistency]]"?

If we did, we could also address what are [[Wikipedia:reliable sources|reliable sources]] in a ''Doctor Who'' context and what aren't. For example, I tend to think that [[Outpost Gallifrey]]'s News Page is a reliable source for ''Doctor Who'' news, but clearly "Eye of Horus" isn't. We could also explicitly state the developing precedents about citing items from forums: in general, of course, forums are ''not'' acceptable sources, but in cases like the recently added Stephen Moffat comments on [[Steven Taylor]] and the [[Sam Jones (Doctor Who)|Sam Jones]] discussions, I think it's OK to cite comments by notable ''Doctor Who'' writers or commentators, when their identities have been well established. It would be good to have a guideline to point to, so as to distinguish things like the Moffat comments from a random forum poster saying "OMG! I herd that the Zarbi are reterning in Series 3, and Martha's gonna get it on with a Menoptera!", which we certainly want to avoid using as a citation.

Would it be useful to work out a standard or guideline for this sort of thing? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, I put Hickman and Spilsbury in as the authors when I added a DWM citation for the lovely [[Indira Varma]]'s casting in ''[[Torchwood]]''. It just seemed odd not to have an author field, I suppose, and they're clearly the authors of the news page. But at the end of the day I suppose it's just a matter of personal preference &mdash; as long as the publication, date and specific article is cited, it's a solid reference.

:On the forum issue... I agree that posts from *anybody* shouldn't be allowed as references, but posts from established scriptwriters seem solid enough. Although other Wikipedia users might well ask us "How do you know it's actually them?" [[User:Angmering|Angmering]] 10:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

::The Cite templates are just a shortcut for making generally consistent footnotes. I don't see any issues around how they've been generated.

::Citing an identified forum user is a bit thorny, but provided their screen name ''is their real name'', and they've been posting under it long enough for the admins to consider it real, I would think it should be taken as a verbatim statement by that individual. [[User:Radagast|Radagast]] 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==A Brief History of Time (Travel)==
As noted by {{User|SonicAD}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doctor_Who&curid=8209&diff=71530002&oldid=71451864 here], Shannon's site has been forced to move from its original server. We need to start moving the massive numbers of links now... --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:Actually, most of the links are OK, thanks to the use of {{tl|brief}} on serial pages. What pages have links to Shannon's site but don't use that template? —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::There may some references in the "trivia" sections on serial articles which I vaguely remember adding... [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
:::For future reference, one can find external links en masse with [[Special:Linksearch]].--[[Special:Contributions/Sean Black|SB]] | [[User talk:Sean Black|T]] 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

::::Good to know! —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

== The style guidelines ==

I am not a member of this project. However, [[The Sensorites]] article came up in a discussion on IRC and I complained about it. Naturally, I was told to {{tl|sofixit}}, so I did. All well so far.

Today, I see that the article has been edited and the "Cast" section replaced "per [[WP:WHO]]". Naturally, I clicked the link to the project page and found the part where it said about such things. I don't particularly mind a list of cast being there (though I think it's not particularly good practice). What I do mind (and hence the reason I post here) is this paragraph:

: ''Although most of the classic series was serial in nature, it is not neccessary to summarise the stories episode by episode. Generally, plot summaries deal with the story in its entirety. If you wish to split it up, you can divide the individual episodes with <nowiki><hr></nowiki> tags, or end cliffhanger paragraphs with ellipses (...), but this is purely optional. Please don't introduce subheaders as this will clutter up the TOC box and lead to an inconsistent look to the story articles.''

My problem with this is that it makes terrible articles. The <nowiki><hr></nowiki> tag is highly deprecated, and looks ugly when used in articles. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sensorites&oldid=70768335 The is the state I found ''the Sensorites'' in]. The "Plot" section is a complete eyesore, due to no subsections. Long sections need to be split, and by episode or groups of episodes (<nowiki>=== Episodes one and two ==</nowiki> for example) is a perfect way to do this, It does not clutter up the TOC, since there are few sections to start with. The other thing is that an "inconsistent look to story articles" isn't particularly undesirable. Our main focus is on individual articles, as self-contained units. If these are improved by extra headers, then that's a good thing regardless. Consistency between articles is good of course, but it's secondary to individual articles being great.

Thanks and regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpo:wer/Esperanza|es]]</font>[[User:Celestianpower|tianpower]] <sup>[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]</sup> 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not crazy about the usage of <nowiki><hr></nowiki> either. However, I don't see the sense in creating arbitrary divisions such as "Episodes one and two"; if the plot section is to be subdivided, why not divide it by episode? I'd rather have a long TOC than either <nowiki><hr></nowiki> tags or subdivisions that don't reflect the actual serial. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 05:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::I'd agree that I'd probably prefer subheadings if the plot is split by episode, rather than just using an ugly horizontal rule. But this should be one subheading per episode, with the correct title. This would have the bonus effect of providing a clearer quick reference to the individual episode names for seasons 1–3. But I wouldn't use this as an excuse hugely long plot descriptions. It was too long, IMO, before Celestianpower edited it, and it's probably about right now. I'd add the episode subheadings, and maybe expand a little if necessary, leaving 1 or 2 paragraphs per episode. But when breaking the episodes, often the cliffhangers get in the way; they're often not at all significant to the plot. If writing without breaks, one can quietly ignore them, something that's a little harder when split. [[User:KJBracey|KJBracey]] 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::Here's an example of what it could look like: [[User:KJBracey/The_Sensorites]]. It became clear while producing that that the current plot needs a fair amount of polishing, regardless. But anyway, I think the presentation is fairly effective, and better than the current style guidelines. But it does make the writing harder, and I don't think current content there is terribly good. --[[User:KJBracey|KJBracey]] 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Looks good to me. I'd certainly like to add my voice to the "No HRs" movement. [[User:Percy Snoodle|Percy Snoodle]] 13:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I think that's an improvement. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think the additional headers are intrusive, and it definitely makes writing more difficult, because sometimes, an entire episode can be summarised in one or two sentences due to extreme padding (''Inferno'' has a particularly good/bad example of this, as most of the first episode with the Doctor's arrival in the parallel universe is horribly repetitive and can be summed up with: Nobody believes him and they beat him up), and in some summaries the events don't break neatly at the cliffhanger (''Frontier in Space'' has a really bad cliffhanger which scarcely merits the additional detail: air hisses out of the airlock, the Master restores it at the last minute). So it invites even more detail in an area where some are already complaining about excessive length. If we don't have <nowiki><hr></nowiki>s, then I'd stick with ellipses. They do the job, and they're non-intrusive. --[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] ([[User talk:Khaosworks|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Khaosworks|contribs]]) 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

: That's great, and thanks for your consideration! The reason I say that Plot should be split in groups rather than individually is that it creates sections of one paragraph, or a couple of short ones. I'd sooner see a larger block of Plot than one-paragraph sections. If I hadn't rewritten "The Sensorites", it would have called for subsections. As-is, however, I think it's better without. Regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>[[User:Celestianpower|tianpower]] <sup>[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]</sup> 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed previously at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Archive_2#Serial summaries]]. You've now removed all distinction between episodes so it is hardly better. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

: Interesting discussion. I like Morwen's approach from there (because it's the same as mine!). I think the episode boundaries are a significant feature of the programme, and it seems rather curious to elide them, unless it really is a very terse summary (shorter than the current ''[[The Sensorites]]''). Having them as proper subheadings is clearer than just HRs as well as just being more conventional style; it aids navigation and comprehension, especially for the 6/7 part epics; I don't like having to count the HRs to figure out which episode I'm looking at. --[[User:KJBracey|KJBracey]] 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Then the solution to that would be to put the episode breaks in the the prose. "The next epidode, XX, begins with..." I truly believe that The Sensorites' Plot section is too short to hold 6 subsections. Back to the HR thing, the Help page ([[Help:Sections]]) says:
::: ''A horizontal dividing line (typed as four hyphens ----) as a division demarcation is not taken into account in the section numbering and TOC. Therefore it should not be used for dividing a page in sets of sections.''
:: Which clearly supports no horizontal rules. Regards, &mdash;[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]]<font color="green">[[User:Celestianpower/Esperanza|es]]</font>[[User:Celestianpower|tianpower]] <sup>[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]</sup> 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You say the synopsis is too short to support subdivision, but that is because you replaced a reasonbly long description with a terse badly written one. I think the best thing would be to ask the original writer (Litefoot I believe) if he wants to revert. I don't really care if it has hr's in it, but the new text isn't very good. [[User:Tim!|Tim!]] 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:::A few weeks ago I became very demoralised with the whole plot writing project. Having written over 70 of them (and yes, not all were masterpieces, but at least they were copy...) I felt the way my work on ''[[The Daleks]]'' was discarded was both high-handed and unrepresentative of the general approach to the world of Who on wikipedia. I notice now that the new style seems to have been reverted, but the whole thing left a bad taste.
:::With regard to episode breaks (which is a topic I tried to flag a while ago with little response) it was only relatively recently I started using them. The first use was to distinguish my copy for ''[[The Abominable Snowmen]]'' (eps 2-6) from the lengthy summary someone wrote for episode 1. Although hr tags look ugly, once I started using them I persuaded myself they were valuable and kept on. There is, as far as I can see, no hard and fast rules over style, length and structure to plot summaries. I was happy for a long-time to keep churning them out based on the theory once they were all pretty much there, then it was easier to establish a house style and make sensible edits accordingly. It thus depresses me really that some contributors have taken it upon themselves of late not just to edit copy but to discard it for no good reason. ''[[The Sensorites]]'' is an example of a story where it's painfully slow to sit through 6 episodes, let alone write episode summaries that are very repetitive, which I'm sure mine were in this case (though that's more Peter R Newman's fault than anyone else's, perhaps...)
:::I'm rambling a bit, so to get to your point: I've almost stopped caring how my summaries are treated. Lately, the whole damn thing is becoming so arbitrary and high-handed. So I'm not keen to revert to my own copy on ''The Sensorites'' because who's to say that my style and structure is better than the one substituted? Without clear guidelines that people abide by, work within and use in a spirit of respect to other people's work (even if it isn't perfect), I'm really not inclined to re-engage. However, if a consensus emerges that everyone respects then I'm happy to do my bit and edit accordingly the 20 or 50 summaries I contributed in the wrong style.--[[User:Litefoot|Litefoot]] 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== A bit of formatting in lists of appearances ==

I've just gotten back to the lists of appearances for the companions, after being distracted by a content dispute on a non-''Doctor Who'' article for a while. I noticed that an anonymous editor has changed the formatting for several new series characters today — see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jackie_Tyler&diff=74349501&oldid=73084282 this edit] on [[Jackie Tyler]], for example — and I think it's an improvement. Unless anyone disagrees, I think I'll start applying this formatting to the lists of appearances (I'm working on [[Sarah Jane Smith]] right now). However, I may not have time right away to go back and amend all the other classic series companions who already have such lists; if anyone wants to take the initiative on that it would be great. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:I've done [[Sarah Jane Smith]] in the new format; let me know whether you prefer it (with subheads merely bolded) to the old one (with full subheaders), which you can see at [[Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart]], for example. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

== Paul Williams? ==

Someone named Paul Williams wrote a short story in ''[[Short Trips: Past Tense]]''. The article used to link to [[Paul Williams]], which is a disambiguation page. I assumed that this Paul Williams was neither [[Paul Williams (Crawdaddy! creator)]], who has written ''about'' science fiction (Theodore Sturgeon and Philip K. Dick), nor [[Paul O. Williams]] (who did write science fiction in the '80s, but seems now to be focused mainly on haiku). But was that assumption correct? I don't have a copy of ''Past Tense'' to see if it has an author bio — could someone who does have it check, please? And if it ''is'' a different Paul Williams (as I assume), he probably ought to have a more specific disambiguation than [[Paul Williams (writer)]], since there are (at least) three other writers by that name. If he's British he could be [[Paul Williams (British writer)]], but I didn't want to assume that. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:00, 6 November 2024

Suggestions for the Main Page

[edit]

I've been taking a look at the main page recently and feel there's a few things that could be improved on. I'm more than willing to help with the suggestions, but I'd like to bring it up in discussion before anything is done.

  1. Could we split the list of participants into those who are active and inactive? While sometimes it's hard to tell, there are many members on the list who haven't been active on the list for years (Some even more than a decade) and if people need to ping participants, it would be better for them to not have to sift through a list of people who have been inactive for eons.  Done
  2. The Task Forces listing seems strange given it's unlikely we're going to branch out into more task forces (Especially when Torchwood has been inactive for over a decade at this point). Should we still continue to list it as a possibility? I think it's unlikely it'll ever branch out.  Done
  3. The freenode channel no longer works and should probably be removed unless a new one is made, especially since most discussion takes place on-site these days.  Done
  4. The sample articles for books and audio plays (Lungbarrow and Jubilee (audio drama)) are in very bad shape despite being the sample articles. Additionally, do we really need a "sample device" article? The only device other than the Sonic we have an article for is the TARDIS, and there's very few other devices that would necessitate the need for a template.  Pending
  5. Should we include an updates infobox? (Similar to those used at Wikipedia:VGCHAR, for example) I feel it would be beneficial for keeping track of talk page discussion, especially given how active both this project and the fandom have been recently.  Done
  6. Could we include Radio Times' Doctor Who sections in the reference section? They're genuinely very helpful for giving an overview of information, gaining reviews, and sourcing cast members, among other things.[1][2]  Done
  7. The Deletion Discussion archive has not been updated in some time. I feel at this stage it should either be abandoned, or have some effort put into locating all of the deletion discussions and adding them to the list.  Pending

These are just general things I've noticed of course, and aren't pressing issues, but I thought I'd bring them to attention to see what should be done about certain issues/if certain suggestions should be accepted and brought forward. Let me know your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add that there's a DW MoS - WP:WHO/MOS - that appears to be in dire need of an update? I did comment on the talk page for that previously, though (perhaps understandably) it didn't garner any response.
Regarding your points, 1, 3 and 7 seem sensible and straightforward suggestions. 2 the seemingly unofficial taskforce getting the new series articles up to GA standard could be added here. 5 there's an incredibly well hidden link in the 'Welcome' box that lists updates, but it appears to be working off the 'full list of pages' linked earlier in the sentence that is (a) incomplete, not containing any of the new series articles, and (b) includes articles that have been deleted since the list was compiled. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the new series task force idea. Though I do pose the idea of marking Torchwood historical. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my intention with this suggestion was more to recognise the work you and @TheDoctorWho and others have being doing on these articles rather than suggest more work needs to be done, but as you think it's a bad idea I'm happy to go back and strike the suggestion. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely feel Torchwood should be made historical given how inactive it's been for so long. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with marking the TW Taskforce as inactive, potentially merging any relevant content/participants here. Trimming the active participants here also seems worthwhile. No strong opinion from me on the rest.
There also used to be a newsletter for the WikiProject (March 2008, April 2008). I'd be willing to collaborate with someone on it, if anyone wanted to try and start it back up. It doesn't have to be monthly, it could be quarterly, biannually, etc. I think it would be a good way to inform people of updates who don't specifically watch this page, and potentially foster new involvement in the project. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd honestly be down to help with the Newsletter. Seems a good way of updating people on developments with the project and with the show. I feel it could potentially be embellished a little from the initial concept, but I'm admittedly not too familiar with how Wikipedia handles individual newsletters like this these days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a list of active newsletters at {{Newsletters}} if you wanted examples on how other WikiProjects handle them. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like something worthwhile, I've been considering proposing something similar, unaware of the existence of the defunct letter Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a newer updated design for it would also be useful. We can definitely start getting something together! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need to trim the active participants list before we get to the point of sending a newsletter out. There was a newsletter recipient list, but given that it hasn't been active since '08 it's out of date. For the first new newsletter we can use the updated participants list, and then give editors the opportunity to opt out of future editions after this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would we go about trimming the list. By most recent edit presumably? If so is there a applicable bot for it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably trim those who haven't been active in years, for a start, but for active editors who happen to be listed who don't participate anymore, I am uncertain how we'd discern it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, by trim I mean shift to a separate "inactive participants" list Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If its checking for those who stopped it would presumably be have to be done manually. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, yes. Obviously some participants are obvious since they're active frequently in WP:DOCTORWHO projects, but it'll take manual sorting for those that aren't obvious. Alternatively, we could keep the iffy cases in there and just leave it and figure it out after the Newsletter is sent out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, each entry has a contribs link. I suggest that we start by checking those, and anybody with nothing at all in the last year can be moved to the new "inactive participants" list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just trimmed all usernames starting A-K, purely anyone who has been inactive for 12 months or longer. I haven't checked yet for editors who are actually still active within the project. Question though, is it worth keeping a list of editors who are inactive? I can't think of any particular reason why it would be useful for us. Unless someone else has one, I'll just mark it as historical as well. We can keep trimming the main list by just removing those who are inactive altogether rather than moving them to an a separate list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those unaware, the lists are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Active participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Inactive participants. The latter was created way back in April-May 2008, but has seen little maintenance since. Other WikiProjects also have inactive participants lists, for example Football, London Transport, Military history and Trains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS possibly applies here to a degree. That other WikiProjects do something is no reason for this one to do the same. I'll note also that in at least one case, their inactive list is bot maintained so doesn't take up a person's time, while we're updating our lists manually. In theory it might be nice to keep a list of historical contributors, but in practice I'm not sure how much it would mean here. Not least because presence on the list does not mean any contribution has necessarily been made (who among us hasn't signed up to at least one thing in life without following through?). At least we're only removing inactive users here and not, as has been the case in the past elsewhere, entire projects and project histories. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update. I have finished trimming inactive editors from the active list. I went ahead and added and updated the inactive participants for now while we still determine if it's useful. I boldly marked the sympathizer list as historical and merged it with the active/inactive participants. I also marked the former newsletter mailing list as historical and created a new one. I went ahead and added anyone remaining in the active list to the new mailing list. We'll include an option in the new newsletter for people to opt out if they wish. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now all thats left is writing the thing. I think that it should probably cover the first half of the year given thats when the recent productivity began. Then continue quarterly Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created a very base design using this newsletter as a base. I'm not too attached to the design, so if anyone else has the time or skill to design something better, please be my guest. The old design just seemed too outdated in my opinion and my Wiki design skills aren't the best. The GOCE seemed to have the best in terms of simplicity, I figured we didn't want to overwhelm people. It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/2024/July if anyone else wants to start adding to it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was also considering if we wanted a new name for it. Space-Time Telegraph is good, but just considering we're revamping everything else, we could change that as well. The Gallifreyan crossed my mind as an option. I'm open to other suggestions too. We can also keep the current name if its the best option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like the Space-Time telegraph, I would say maybe through in a line in the first issue requesting alternative name sugestions? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I feel Space-Time Telegraph is more than fine but I feel leaving it open is valid as well.
What should we tackle in terms of subject matter? I assume the recent GANs and productivity for a start, as well as the coverage on series 14. Should anything else be covered? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with leaving it at Space-Time Telegraph then, just wanted to pitch it. I'd definitely agree in saying that series 14 and the work towards GA's/GT's on both Classic and New Who is something to write about. We could potentially mention the series 14/season 1 RM if that's still ongoing when we send it out. Also the seven points that started this discussion, see if anyone who isn't watching this page wishes to help update the information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel both are good. I do believe 1 has been addressed already, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of you have any specific portions that you want to write of the topics we've discussed (or anything else even)? I can take anything that's left, I just didn't want to take anything anyone else planned on writing given I already wrote the intro. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down to write any of the sections. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: why don't you write over the proposals that started this discussion since you're the one who originally proposed them? If @OlifanofmrTennant: is interested in writing, perhaps she could write over the GA's since she sparked most of the productivity there? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Are we still covering the move discussion? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's still active when we're ready to send the newsletter. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah alright. I've been pretty busy with some scary stuff recently but I should be able to write it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho I've written a mockup for the section about the proposals. (Which will ironically be very funny given we're linking people to the discussion we discussed the newsletter in lmao). Let me know if you feel it should be altered, since I was admittedly uncertain how to frame these proposals in something like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the two of you for writing your sections! I was hoping to wait a day or two here to see if the series 14 RM gets relisted or closed. I'd really hate to mention it and have it closed two minutes after I send the newsletter. Once that's done I'll send it out promptly. (If there's no official relist/closure by Saturday night, I'll go ahead and add/send it at that time.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sent Went ahead and sent it tonight. Thanks for helping out guys! If we're hoping to send quarterly, this is probably close enough to count as the June edition and we could also get issues out in September and December? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. I'm down. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question about the newsletter: concerning the entry about "The Star Beast" article, what does being still salty about the move concern? Is it about this move? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated reply to the proposals listed at the top of this section...

  1. This point has already been addressed.
  2. Although it would be cool to see further task forces operating under this WikiProject, it seems very unlikely that any further task forces will be created. I support removing the listing, but we should definitely keep a link to the Torchwood task force for easy access.
  3. Agree with removing the freenode channel.
  4. Agree that the book and audio play samples should be changed to better quality articles. Agree that the "sample devices" template should be removed.
  5. The updates infobox seems not a bad idea, but it clutters the Wikipedia:VGCHAR page a lot and looks odd, pushing the regular text down the page. Is there a better way to present the same information?
  6. Yes, we should definitely include the Radio Times references.
  7. Wow, the deletion discussion page was last edited in 2009! It would probably be easier to abandon this deletion discussion altogether.

My suggestions

  1. I think we should include a link on the main page to the newly-regenerated newsletter.
  2. We should also make the signing-up-for-the-project link easier to locate. It seems lost in the lead sentence, surrounded by all those other wikilinks.

Mr Sitcom (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Sitcom Ah, sorry I didn't reply to this until now, I didn't receive a notification of this.
VGCHAR has been updated since this post, and now has shifted the updates to a separate tab. Admittedly I'm not sure about something like that for this WikiProject all things considered, as while I feel the updates are useful and helpful for maintaining articles, I'm honestly not sure of how best to arrange it. Something I didn't notice before is that we do have a recent changes thing similar to them already, but it's not updated to current standards and hidden out of the way. I definitely feel the second paragraph of the "Welcome!" box could be expanded with this information but I'm admittedly not sure how to do so (As I feel we could expand it or make it a seperate box entirely).
I definitely agree on linking the newsletter (especially since this is planned to be an ongoing element) and I agree on making the sign up notice easier to locate. Admittedly not sure on the best method of doing so to make them easily visible to readers, however. Perhaps it could be done alongside the expansion I mentioned above? I'm not entirely sure, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That WGCHAR page looks much better formatted that way! With regards to the recent changes link, I think we should update it to current standards and place it in a separate box near the top of the page, along with a link to the full list of pages, although that page hasn't been updated for some time either – should we invest time in updated that page?
In the "Welcome" box, we can write something like "Click here to sign up to the participants list!", in bold, in a separate paragraph below the introductory text. Perhaps we can list the link to the newsletter under the "Organisation" box... Mr Sitcom (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. At worst it seems more tedious than difficult.
I do feel we could probably put the Newsletter either where the freenode channel currently is, or put it above the associated WikiProjects depending on people's thoughts, with a note to sign up for the newsletter close to it? I do feel putting the sign-up incredibly far away from the organization box may be counterintuitive given the two aspects are associated with each other. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. There are two links in the last sentence of the first part of the infobox; two very-easily missed links that I have a devil of a time finding each time I look for them even though I know they are there! A full list of pages in the WikiProject can be found here and recent changes to these pages can be seen here. (the bolded words are where the links are in the project page, I haven't linked from here). It looks like the former was to a degree manually updated, but presumably there would've been a script to output all the articles tagged as being part of the project? Otherwise as you say it would have been tedious to generate. The latter link appears to be some kind of clever thing that updates the results based on changed to the articles listed in the first list. This means that if we update the list of articles, the list of updates will be generated automatically. I hope someone knows an easy way to get a list of all articles that are tagged as being part of this project. (Apologies if I have at any point misunderstood either the object of something, or how it works) JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any idea what might be some ideal sample articles for the book and audio drama categories (Suggestion #4)? I've had a quick look, but not any success. Also, has the final point been addressed? Mr Sitcom (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Pokelego999, otherwise this might go unread. :) Mr Sitcom (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Sitcom admittedly not sure, especially since all other articles for those two are in similar states. We could potentially improve Jubilee and Lungbarrow, but I dunno where I'd start or what the breadth of coverage is on those. As for the Archive, probably better off removed. I'll work that out later today. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential Good Topic

[edit]

I know we've discussed a number of possible good topics here lately. This one would take quite a bit of work to improve those that are below GA standard, but I do think this may make an interesting topic. A number of these, especially from the Tennant and Smith eras, probably aren't too far away as they already have well fleshed-out reception and production sections, and just need a general cleanup before being nominated.

TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this has some promise. For what each article needs, looking at a glance:
-The Christmas Invasion needs a Reception section. It also needs citations for various unsourced claims and a beef up in production info, which is very lacking despite what's already there.
-The Runaway Bride looks decent at a glance but needs a buff to Reception.
-The Next Doctor looks much the same but needs a Reception section. The Continuity section needs to be axed as well.
-The End of Time looks decent. Mostly just seems like basic cleanup and source additions.
-The Time of the Doctor's production could probably be expanded but it looks in a good state right now.
-Last Christmas looks decent at a glance. Needs some buffing up in places and cleanup but overall not a bad state.
-The Husbands of River Song needs a buff to Production and Reception and a massive trimming in the continuity section.
-The Return of Doctor Mysterio looks decent but needs buffs to Production and Promotion.
-Twice Upon a Time looks solid. Continuity could probably be trimmed, and some other areas need cleanup and expansion, but nothing too egregious.
-Resolution needs a Production and Reception buff.
-Spyfall needs a Production and Reception buff.
-Revolution of the Daleks needs a Production and Reception buff.
-Eve of the Daleks need a Production and Reception buff.
I'd say the articles that need the most work are all of Thirteen's specials and The Husbands of River Song. The other articles listed above have some issues, but the episodes listed there have the most amount of work needed in order to bring them to GA status. If we focus down on this I can see it being fairly do-able, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do intend to work on the Time of the Doctor and the Capaldi specials. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to start with the Whittaker era specials. Splitting the work by era seems like it may be the fastest way to achieve this one. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to hit up whatever spots you want. I can probably try hitting up the non GA Tennant specials and help with Thirteen's if you two are hitting up the other areas. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to start with Tennant's that might be the best. That way each special is covered between the three of us. Then as we start finishing up we can jump in where others need help. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can't start on The Christmas Invasion in the coming days. Been a bit busy lately and I'll need to hit up some comments on my FL nomination, but I should be able to get started on this soon. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than willing to help with anything that works best for you guys, I just don't want to step on any toes or anything like that. In particular, I'm super familiar with Capaldi and Tennant's run, but I'm good working on anything really. Garriefisher (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We always appreciate the extra assistance anywhere we can get it. Feel free to jump in anywhere you'd like to help out! All of Capaldi's specials and most of Tennant's need work based on the notes left above. If you're working heavily on any particular page just drop us a message so that we (hopefully) don't duplicate any work. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, feel free to update this chart as any progress is made, just so that we can all keep track of where this stands. I just sent EotD off to the powers that be at GAN. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a bit of help here: I'm struggling a bit to find reviews for The Christmas Invasion due to its age, and so far I have only managed to find a Radio Times and AV Club source. Any additional sources yall can find would be greatly appreciated in order to build a comprehensive reception section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Here's a standalone review from IGN and a retrospect from Cultbox. You may also be able to pull some more retrospective review-ish type content out of the some Christmas special rankings: Den of Geek, Vulture (let me know if you can't access this one because of the paywall and I'll email you the paragraph regarding this episode), Digital Spy, Mashable and ScreenRant all have 2-3 paragraphs on this episode specifically that you should be able to pull a few statements out of. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho Thank you! I checked IGN and couldn't find that when I looked, so thank you for catching that one. I'll try and whip something up with this tomorrow if I have time, since this should hopefully be more than enough. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, glad I could help! Let me know if I can help anywhere else. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho due to my scheduling I don't think I'll be able to do as much major article overhauling as I'd like, so I'm going to be dropping out of helping this for the time being. If time allows I'll see if I can't help elsewhere but between my irl commitments and other WikiProject commitments I dunno how much I'll be able to contribute meaningfully to this project. I'm really sorry about this, but I figured I'd let you know just so that way it didn't seem like I was absconding my work. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for the help you've provided so far! If you ever want to jump in anywhere on it in the future feel free, even if they're just minor edits. Best of luck on your other endeavors. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I haven't been on here in forever but I am responsible for a lot of Series 5-7 stuff back in the day (when I was a literal teenager lol). (I hope those hold up...I'm afraid to check and see if people added unsourced things or trivia.) I would maybe like to help in the next two weeks at least? I'm so glad I just happened to login and see how things are going and see that things have really revitalized. I can try to work on some Capaldi. Glimmer721 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am working a bit on The Husbands of River Song. Glimmer721 (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yo welcome back! Thank you for all that work you did back in the day, and thank you for helping out on this drive as well, it's an honor to have you. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You can see where I got tired of the grind of writing reception sections after episodes aired right at Nightmare in Silver. I'm interested in working on Capaldi era episodes probably the most right now because I'm due for a rewatch. It seems there are a lot more resources now digitally available. I do have some old DWM issues and DVDs that can help with certain classic series episodes, but we're not there yet... Glimmer721 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for the progress you did provide for Nightmare in silver as it really helped me kick into gear Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Also, I have a 2013 special edition of DWM that might have stuff for "Time of the Doctor" when we need that. Glimmer721 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've done a lot, let me know what you think! I know I have to work on the lead, cutting down the plot summary, and maybe some sources need to be updated or have more details. Glimmer721 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has improved a lot with your contributions! It could definitely use some minor cleanup with the things you listed, but it's definitely a lot closer to GA standards now than it was before you started. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exciting news! The lead list article for this future GT is now an FL! TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I fear that my ADHD causes me to take on too many projects at a single time. Anyways, now that I'm over my recent case of COVID, I wanted to mention that I also plan on working towards the following GT:

TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the exact same way, I have around five ongoing projects with another 3 I'm considering tackling. My blu Ray copies of TUAT and TRoDM arrived so I will likely get around to the Capaldi specials soon, hopefully Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: With the amount of planned goals it may be better to create a Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals page similar to the task section on WP:USPREZ. It would be better centralized and easier to track instead of hunting down 5 different topics spread across as many seperate threads Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea honestly. If no one wants to beat me to it I'll try to start putting it together over the next week or so. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do it before the newsletter goes out, we could probably mention it and call for suggestions Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably make topics for some of the fictional elements proposals (Such as alien species and companions) should this proposal go through. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how a companion topic would go? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I'd imagine something like this:

(Ignore the fact they're all classed "Unknown," I am too busy to check their individual rankings rn)

Obviously would need to include spin-off Companions. I'd imagine a few characters might be considerable here too such as Sara Kingdom and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart but I chose not to include anyone whose status was debatable for the time being. Either way, I do hope this helps visualize what I mean. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, I wasnt thinking of all companions classed in a single article but I think it works. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: though this gave me an idea for something like.
Would this work as a topic? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: would the Sixth Doctor's individual episodes, as well as Colin Baker need to be included in this topic? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Colin Baker maybe the individual episodes no. I included TWD because its the only season 21 episode to have 6. Another possible inclusion would be his audio range? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant I can see the audio range being viable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant and Pokelego999: Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals now exists. Do we want to continue this discussion there? Either on that talk page or under the specific headers? Feel free to add any further ideas of your own. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a link to the page from somewhere besides this thread. Any ideas? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant Perhaps in the "Organization" section? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFL or TFA?

[edit]

Does anyone else think that given our recent progress it may be a good idea to try and get a page of ours onto the main page? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea honestly. I already requested to have "List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials" displayed on the main page on 23 December of this year. Do we have any other FL's/FA's that haven't already been on the main page? For featured lists specifically, perhaps stuff for 22 November of this year or 24 March of next year would be good to coincide with the 61st anniversary of Classic Who and the 20th of New Who? Featured articles appear every day and can be suggested at WP:TFAR. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Sydney Newman for the 61st anniversery Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Newman has been nominated. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September Newsletter

[edit]

@Pokelego999 and OlifanofmrTennant: If you two (or anyone else who wishes to write) are still interested in getting out a newsletter quarterly newsletter, it's about that time to start planning the next one. Do either of you two have any particular areas you want to cover? The continued progress towards Good/Featured Articles/Topics/Lists, the potential/needed replacement of Doctor Who News, and the improvement of our fictional element articles may be good places to start. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho I'd say those three things are probably the best to cover. We should also probably mention The War Between the Land and the Sea's announcement in the lead of the Newsletter given it's a series related announcement, though since no article is intended to exist for a while we can probably just keep it to a mention there. As for who's covering what, I can probably cover the fictional elements proposals given I myself started that discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a draft for the newsletter going here, no rush, perhaps a deadline of the 15th for the respective months that we send out a letter? That gives us two weeks. I can take on The War Between the Land and the Sea mention as well as whatever Oli doesn't want to cover. We have a draft article for the spin-off and given that filming has recently begun, it likely actually won't be long before we move it, if we follow WP:NTV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho would it be possible to change the formatting from three to four headlines in order to cover the two subjects currently there, as well as Doctor Who News and the Good/Featured Content? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done I added the additional section headers. We can perfect the exact place of the column split once the sections are finalized before sending it out. Depending on how long the remaining sections end up being, one of the shorter ones could probably be scooched over to column two to make them look more evenly split. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have a section for articles we have been working on that we are angling for future GA? Glimmer721 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's our goal! It just hasn't been written yet. Feel free to hop in and add to it if you want, otherwise one of the other three with us will add the content soon. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho, @Pokelego999, @OlifanofmrTennant, umm, the newletter hadn't been changed in the last week and a half, so I added to it a bit (and added my name to the contributors). Is the deadline moved, or has the pan changed from it beinhg quarterly? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 I don't think the deadline's shifted, but I'd assume it's down to some of us having been busy recently. I'll do more work on it later if the others permit it.
I suppose a question in general: What should we write for the recent deletions? Just notify their existence, or should we include some form of message along with it? (You can help by adding sources..., or something similar) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intended on polishing up anything else that was left before sending it out tonight. (I'm personally in the central time zone so there's still about 10 hours left of the "15th" for myself.) If either of you want to add to it before then, please do. For that section, I'd definitely reccomend adding a neutral note about contributing to the deletion discussion or the article itself. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added that section before commting to varios projects. Due to a few personal things I feel I have to scale down the amount of committed projects I have on wikipedia so I do have to step away from the newsletter Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The newsletter has been Yes Sent. Pleasure working with you all again. For the time being, we'll keep planning on having the next issue out by December 15. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else know this existed?

[edit]

I have just found this link, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Episode citations, under the "What do we include?" section of the main page, subheading "Canon". The sentence went like this, and the bolded word was the link: In practice, anything from the televised stories need not be sourced or distinguished, although the relevant episodes should be referenced (with citations to the appropriate episodes or serials).. Could we do anything with this page, perhaps advertise it better, or has it become obsolete? Mr Sitcom (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Sitcom I feel the content is useful. I've used this template many times before, but had no clue about the page. Admittedly not sure what should be done with this though. Some of the content is useful but part of it is very outdated. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. Perhaps we should leave it in the "to do later" pile for now? Mr Sitcom (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time Hunter

[edit]

Hello everyone, I happened to stumble across Category:Time Hunter today, and was wondering what everyone else thinks about it? The Time Hunter series itself is a series of Doctor Who spin-off novellas. I don't know if there's any good reason for this category specifically to exist, especially considering these already exist:

  • Time Hunter, an article which already lists & links to every specific book that the category lists.
  • Category:Doctor Who novellas: a category that already lists individual novellas based on Doctor Who, including most if not all novellas in the Time Hunter series
  • Category:Doctor Who spin-offs: a category listing media associated with Doctor Who (in my opinion, based on what little I know about the Time Hunter series, these should be categorized as spin-offs but currently aren't).
  • Category:Telos Publishing books: which includes a list of all of the individual books published by the publishing group that published Time Hunter; notably, all of the books published are related to Doctor Who.
  • Category:Telos_Publishing: a category about everything that Telos Ltd. has published (all related to Doctor Who).
  • Telos Doctor Who novellas: an article listing all of the Doctor Who novellas that Telos Ltd. has published. This list does not include the Time Hunter series in its list, as this article makes the case that there's a difference between "Doctor Who novellas": novellas published specifically with Doctor Who characters; and "Time Hunter novellas": novellas in the Time Hunter series which include elements and references to Doctor Who, but only feature spin-off characters. (Let me know your opinions on this as well if you'd like).
  • Lists of books based on Doctor Who: a list including the Telos Doctor Who novellas, but again, not the Time Hunter novellas (although I believe there could be a case to include them).

Anyhow, that's everything I could find! Just based on the amount of categories that already exist that I believe already cover the topic of the Category:Time Hunter, I find it to be a little redundant, but please let me know your thoughts! Thanks :) Garriefisher (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there's enough for separation from the other categories here, but I feel the Time Hunter series is already dubiously notable as is. We should probably look into the notability of these subjects more extensively. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much at all about the Time Hunter series, but just a general scan through references, sources, articles outside of Wikipedia, etc. leads me to believe that at the very least, the individual articles for each book should be compiled into one page. I can't find any reason for them to be listed separately.
For the Time Hunter article itself, I've only been able to find a few sources:
  • Telos Publishing Ltd.'s own website, which is non-independent (and currently the most used source in the individual articles)
  • Worlds Without End, which only includes information about The Cabinet of Light as well as information about Telos Publishing.
  • The Time Scales, which also only includes information about The Cabinet of Light.
  • Doctorwhoreviews, an independent review website for plenty of Doctor Who content.
  • The TARDIS library, which only offers brief blurbs (usually from the books cover jackets) & publishing date.
  • The books themselves, which I don't have access to & don't want to spend money on at the moment.
Another point is that when searching about the Time Hunter series, there is a more popular young adult book series, The Time Hunters by Carl Ashmore, that pushes results about Telos' Time Hunter series to page 3-4 of results, even in Google Books. That's all I researched for now, but just based on my understanding, I don't believe the individual articles meet WP:GNG & should be reconsidered as either being removed or consolidated into the main Time Hunter series article. Then again, I'm not an expert or anything, this is just simply my understanding.
Garriefisher (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the series has so few results, it may be more worthwhile to bundle AfD the entire series. I'll probably do a bit of searching later today though to see if the series can't be verified in some way, but as of right now the individual articles should definitely be killed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the individual book articles are short and could just be WP:BLARed to the series article. A couple of the individual book articles have more content and I suggest warrant individual consideration and maybe merging content to the series article or to the authors’ articles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm late to replying to this, life is hard. But in terms of importance, if any of the book articles were to be kept, the most important is The Cabinet of Light. It's the only novel in the series that actually directly involves the Doctor & other established Doctor Who characters. The rest of the series is technically a spin-off of The Cabinet of Light. If we feel like TCoL warrants its own article, that makes sense - I personally think just merging the rest into a single article would make a lot of sense if everyone else is good with that? Garriefisher (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I have been looking through the stub articles and there seem to be many articles which lack notability, and should be deleted, redirected or merged together. I have been listing them here, and was wondering if anyone would like to help- they could be listed for AfD or otherwise as everyone wishes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant, I see that you have been putting a lot of articles lacking WP:NBOOK to AfD, so just pinging you here, as I have been creating a list of them. (Also, I have just proposed a bunch of articles for AfD, so it'll be good to participate in the deletion discussion.) There is a article alert section, btw on the project page, so you can see GAN and AfD and other alerts there. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose just BLARing the books. Their lack of notability is relatively assured and I don't think anyone's objected to any of them being redirected prior. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of them have a 'lacks notability' template, so like I would BLAR them in a few days, just trying to see what response similar AfDs get though, before I do that. I'm not sure about BLARing those without templates though, and I have also been listing audios, which should probably be merged into new/existing articles. Until then, I'll just keep trying to find more such articles and listing them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR is for uncontroversial removals. Given the unanimous discussion toward redirecting these books so far, it shouldn't be an issue so long as you do a valid BEFORE beforehand. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who did some extensive cleanup a while ago, I'm very much down to help. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You can help list more articles, looking at all the stubs is not interesting at all lol; or add a table or atleast 1-2 lines of summaries at the Faction Paradox page section, where the listed books are present. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of the 42 articles in Category:Bernice Summerfield audio plays should be deleted or merged and redirected; I would do it but I have been doing it for other articles and it is exhausting (though most of it is just copy and pasting the same couple of sentences), so I'll get back to doing it after like a week's time. Any help will be good.

@Pokelego999, TheDoctorWho, OlifanofmrTennant, Alex 21, and JustAnotherCompanion: this will probably go unseen otherwise, and I have seen you all active on this WikiProject, so pinging here; I also wanted to ask if and where we should put this, so that people can see this and help if they want. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorWhoFan91 Per your request, I've redirected all Bernice Summerfield stories into Bernice Summerfield, barring Oh No It Isn't! given its AfD. If possible, I would suggest trying to improve this article soon, as right now it's covering the character when it's more about her associated series. For the time being, I'm going to remove the cyclical redirect links from the Summerfield article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant merged and redirected, because if we are redirecting, we should probably give some data about it at least, but this is fine too, thanks; I will improve it soon, I noticed even it has a fails WP: GNG tag. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 There wasn't much content to merge admittedly beyond basic plot information, but that is not a difficult task, and I believe it would be best to do so under a focused effort to revamp the Bernice Summerfield article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, the edit summaries would have been long and would have required more edits; it's good that you redirected, or I would have used the longer method probably, thanks. Plus the Bernice Summerfield article needs a lot of work, so I would have required looking at lots of sources. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the early audio story and book articles created in the early '00's can probably all be redirected. It's been something I've been meaning to do for the Big Finish productions for a while. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theres maybe a small handful of stories that have notability. Off the top of my head I belive Sirens of Time I think has just enough sources to survive. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the Dr Who and related books, audios and comics do not warrant individual articles and are better merged into series articles or maybe sometimes author articles, but there are a few that are of more note, were more significant and do have better sourcing. Editors should have some regard for WP:BEFORE. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have been looking at the stubs related to audios and books, and most of them either have or should have a "fails WP:GNG" tag; like I have probably looked at a hundred of them, and its 75% tag, 20% should be tagged, and 5% okay-ish. Wikipedia was very different two decades ago; the WikiProject will probably be down 150-200 more articles if we redirect/delete/merge all the articles that should never have been articles in the first place. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor

[edit]

I have only recently stumbled on this spate of disruptive editing that has been taking place for a few days. I'm drawing the wider WikiProject's attention to this issue in the hope that we don't need to take it to DRN or ANI.
Blob02 has been repeatedly making unreferenced and non-MOS-compliant edits to The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. They have been reverted and warned on talk pages (let me know if I have missed any):


Blob02, you have only been here for six days so I wouldn't expect you to have read every single policy and guideline, but the ones you have been consistently breaking are:

  • Verifiability – A core policy, this means you must provide references for any claims, and format them correctly
  • No original research – A core policy, this means you do not insert your own interpretations if they are not backed up by reliable secondary sources
  • Manual of Style – The way we write and lay out our articles to ensure consistency and an encyclopaedic tone. You also need to follow the style advice for:
  • Doctor Who
  • TV
  • Fictional elements (e.g. characters)
  • Consensus – A core policy, when experienced editors tell you how we do things here, you listen to us and do not repeatedly break the rules


Blob02, I hope that we can resolve this and help you make constructive contributions here, but if you repeatedly show that you are not going to follow the rules and guidelines, then the next step is to consider a community ban. I really don't want to have to go there. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

what's the problem? Blob02 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you are not reading all the resources that have provided to tell you why you are being WP:Disruptive; you keep arguing and making the same edits again and again. We can see you are trying to be helpful, but you are unintentionally wasting other editors' time. WP:OR does not mean something is false, just that no reliable source has been shown to say so; a shift to the supernatural relates to the show, not the character of the Doctor; and so on and so on, as you have been repeatedly told. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blob02: this edit summary is disappointing. "Team effort" doesn't mean you insert random stuff with citation needed tags and expect others to find the citations. It means you do the work, just as everyone else does the work when they add new content. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formally reported. I'm sorry it has come to this. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been checking the recent changes to the articles of this WikiProject for the last few days, I don't think User:Blob02 is going to listen; most of his mainspace edits have been reverted, the same changes again and again, by many-many different editors. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the Bernice Summerfield Situation

[edit]

Given recent discussions, the Bernice Summerfield article has kind of become an elephant in the room. With so many articles having been dumped into the article in such a short span of time, it's... not really in a good state. And then there's articles like The Adventuress of Henrietta Street or Just War (novel) that can't be merged effectively even though they're just a plot summary and one-two paragraphs of minor dev info because of how badly formatted the main article is. In its current state, the article is unwieldy and not really covering all the information it needs to, and I doubt that can go un-addressed for longer, especially as we downsize more trivial articles. I'd normally tackle it myself once I have time, but I think this is an article outside the scope of what one person can handle, especially given it's covering every piece of Summerfield media to have ever released. This is something I feel needs some kind of group attack in order to finally resolve.

The article needs a more condensed form of covering these books, while also covering information associated with them, such as author information, plot summary, and any development history they have. A character table should likely be implemented to cover the list currently in the article, and the audio stories need a similar treatment to the books, but without COPYVIO plot summaries. This is mostly tedious work, but it needs to be done to ensure the article's quality and readability. Beyond this, I'm not sure what else should be done, but I propose that we try to get at least a few editors on this in order to improve this article for any potential future use. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of noticed that too; I was thinking of tackling it but I have never anything she featured in, so I decided to see if someone else might be more interested. My first suggestion would be split the audios into a different article; that will halve the size, and then start finding the best way to tackle how the BS article can be reorganized (suggestion-probably starting with the characters- I mostly just dumped the info when I merged that into the article, bcs I couldn't differentiate what to keep and what not to). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 I feel the books would need splitting as well, in that case, but at the same time we'd not be left with much at the main Summerfield article. If we focus on going the split route, we'd need sources to verify the main franchise's notability in the first place, and discuss other aspects of the series beyond listing what is a part of it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I'm sure we can expand the article and also verify the franchise's notability- there are sources even for the more obscure Doctor Who content, and despite the EighthDA book and audios having separate articles, the Eighth Doctor article still has data for a huge article. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the Eighth Doctor is heavily lacking in citations, and is additionally not representing an entire franchise of his own accord. Summerfield's article doubling as a franchise article makes it so finding sources will likely prove to be more vital for the article's continued usage than Eight. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From nominations DW novels to AfD, I have learned that you can put something up for deletion, and some nerd(affectionately) will find enough citations to keep it[Joke]; more seriously, I am sure we will find citations, I'll look when I get the time(probably a week or two). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: The Complete History

[edit]

To ascertain this fact for the WikiProject: Which copies of Doctor Who: The Complete History do we have on-hand? I've just completed work on Mel Bush, but feel as though the Complete History has a lot of information that would benefit her article's developmental information. While I do not expect the specific copies focusing on her to be on-hand, I did figure I would ask here in order for future reference. To be able to easily request information from it from other editors on the chance we know someone has access to a copy of The Complete History that we need would be greatly beneficial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain all of them are on the Internet Archive. unfourtantely my current computer struggles to load pdfs so I struggle to read the books. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant I didn't notice this when you first shared it, but I'm fairly certain it's an unofficial upload, so I'm not sure if we'd even be allowed to use that at all. Would it be possible to ascertain the verifiability of the uploader, or if that upload is even allowed on the Archive in the first place? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing preventing us from using them for research purposes, but we should absolutely not be linking to them per WP:COPYVIOEL. I removed several of these links, but it seems they continued to be added afterwards. Rhain (he/him) 22:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I saw some of the links had been delinked; I had linked them bcs I saw it on a few articles, didn't know they violated a guideline. Thank you for removing them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I personally bought the ones with Hell Bent/Husbands of River Song and Power of the Daleks/The Highlanders/The Underwater Menace/The Moonbase. Glimmer721 (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential new source?

[edit]

I've discovered that BBC One's website for Doctor Who contains cast lists, broadcast dates and times, and links to concept art and behind the scenes content for the revived era, going from Rose until Power of the Doctor. Would this be useful for citations? It's primary, but definitely very useful for some usually hard to find information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who webste's Stories section also provides similar information, if it's worth anything. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21 it might be worth linking both then. Either way both seem highly usable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added links to both and additionally also added The Complete History as a source for editors to look into. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings to be used for reception sections

[edit]

Hi, I'd thought I would pass on some rankings that can be used in reception sections for most episodes!

Hope this helps!! Feel free to add more Glimmer721 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing! I actually started working on a summary of the DWM rankings a while ago but never finished it; I've just published it here. Hopefully it can work as an easy to find this information when writing episode articles. Rhain (he/him) 05:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]