Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-08-12 Still to do (as of Nov 2024): Replace old Gallifrey One (linksearch) (538 left) with new URLs. Promote every broadcasted series of new Who to good article status. The following need promoting: Series 13, Series 14. Promote the main Doctor Who page to good article status. Improve the quality of The Sarah Jane Adventures episode articles, found at: List of The Sarah Jane Adventures serials. Restore all previous featured articles (with particular focus on Doctor Who missing episodes). Promote List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) to featured article status (like its companion article). Expand and tidy up the New Series Adventures novels, which includes rewriting some articles to be more encyclopedic. Attention on The Forgotten Army. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals for more possible goals

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

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

Template:Whotalkarchivenav

This is sort of a continuation of the discussion begun above at "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. --Brian Olsen 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tim! 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 the pilot episode or the "Morbius Doctors"). Any other section titles that might be appropriate for the bulk of the serial articles? --Brian Olsen 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? Bryan 00:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bryan 00:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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). --Brian Olsen 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "Distribution" ? -- Chuq 01:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bryan 08:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 here. - LA @ 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 onto my Flickr account. Can we use this image for the Doctor Who Project? Liyster 02:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source: The Who Shop International, Doctor Who, Toys & Models, Britannia Police Box Model Dark http://www.thewhoshop.com/catalogue2/product_info.php?cPath=1_167_107&products_id=740 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.

Ah, and their helpful Conditions of Use page states "Put here your Conditions of Use information." so that's Terms of Use sorted. ;-)

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. TransUtopian 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.")

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. Phil Sandifer 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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."

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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles - though it's not yet a formal guideline. Percy Snoodle 12:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC) (split by Percy Snoodle)[reply]

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 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) Percy Snoodle 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.) --Brian Olsen 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like great names to me. Phil Sandifer 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Khaosworks - keep the summaries and rework the trivia into proper sections. Tim! 09:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? - LA @ 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that the userbox wars resolved against "Wikipedians who" categories in general. Phil Sandifer 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. DonQuixote 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the best idea I've ever heard about this Notes/Trivia business. --Thelb⁴ 08:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. DonQuixote 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which episodes? --Thelb⁴ 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See An Unearthly Child and The Daleks. Still need to expand the rest of the trivia for those though. DonQuixote 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Restructuring of serial articles and Excessive summary length--Brian Olsen 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? Litefoot 16:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not trying to insult anybody with my edits of the plot summaries. However, I think there are some serious issues here.

1. Plot summaries are necessarily written from an in-universe perspective, which is frowned upon.
2. Plot summaries duplicate the work of other resources.
3. Plot summaries are encyclopedically questionable,.
4. 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. Phil Sandifer 18:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? 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. Phil Sandifer 15:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. TransUtopian 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Brian Olsen 16:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Litefoot 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 22:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil Sandifer 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just noticed that the following was 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. TransUtopian 00:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. TransUtopian 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Litefoot 23:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Bondegezou 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, folks. Deej30 (talk · contribs) 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 here), and this image, which Genidealingwithfairuse (talk · contribs) 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oops. My bad; fixed now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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/.--Bjwebb (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Bjwebb (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Bjwebb (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 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.--Bjwebb (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! Thanks, Bjw! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic resource, well done! —Litefoot 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Aquanostra9 (talk · contribs) 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. Quest4pi 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it, though we have to be aware of WP:OR. --Jamdav86 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me, now that we can be reasonably sure that, at the very least, a pilot will air.--SB | T 08:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so, woohoo! TransUtopian 11:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rose Tyler, I should think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tim! 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it over. --Jamdav86 21:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Angmering 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)". --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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'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 {{cite news}} or {{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 "a foolish consistency"?

If we did, we could also address what are 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 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? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 — 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?" Angmering 10:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Radagast 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by SonicAD (talk · contribs) here, Shannon's site has been forced to move from its original server. We need to start moving the massive numbers of links now... --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There may some references in the "trivia" sections on serial articles which I vaguely remember adding... Tim! 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, one can find external links en masse with Special:Linksearch.--SB | T 17:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{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 <hr> 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 <hr> tag is highly deprecated, and looks ugly when used in articles. 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 (=== Episodes one and two == 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, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about the usage of <hr> 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 <hr> tags or subdivisions that don't reflect the actual serial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. KJBracey 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --KJBracey 13:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, I think that's an improvement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 <hr>s, then I'd stick with ellipses. They do the job, and they're non-intrusive. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tim! 18:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --KJBracey 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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, —Celestianpower ^háblame 22:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tim! 17:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.--Litefoot 20:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]