Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lost in Time

[edit]

Does anybody have back issues of DWM from around 2004? Is there anything in there about the Lost in Time DVD set? Particularly concerning my Keep !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost in Time (Doctor Who). Also, regarding the same AfD, does anybody have Alan Kistler's Doctor Who: A History? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This WikiProject probably should have been notified about that AfD. In any case, here are some articles from DWM around that time:
    I've responded over there too, but unfortunately Kistler's book doesn't refer to the DVD. There's also Larsen, Joachim (October 2006). Larsen, Henrik (ed.). "Tid til Doctor Who" [Time for Doctor Who]. Obskuriøst (in Danish). No. 10. pp. 16–21. and a brief mention in Cartmel, Andrew (20 December 2005). Through Time: An Unauthorised and Unofficial History of Doctor Who. A & C Black. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-826-41734-3. In utter contrast to the thoughtless devastation that was wrought at the time, the BBC has recently compiled a painstaking DVD collection (appropriately entitled Lost in Time) which lovingly collects and restores all the surviving fragments of the incomplete episodes. It's a splendid piece of work and the thoughtful and well written notes that accompany the set do their best to explain and justify what happened, stating that the individuals responsible for this pillage were 'just ordinary people doing their jobs in terms of the need and assumptions of the day.' that may be relevant, though likely only tangentially. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, we were notified, in this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware; my point was that a proper talk page notification would have been appropriate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies. I'm admittedly concerned that posting them here counts as canvassing of some sort, but I'll try to send a notice of bigger discussions like this here in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pokelego999: The {{subst:Afd notice}} template may be used on the talk pages of page creators, significant contributors, and interested Wikiprojects, in a way that does not violate WP:CANVAS. The specific guideline is WP:APPNOTE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This is a notice that there is currently a Miscellany for deletion for the following drafts:
Draft:Doctor Who series 17
Draft:Doctor Who series 16
Draft:Sixteenth Doctor
Draft:Seventeenth Doctor
All editors are welcome to contribute to the discussion to help reach a consensus. Mjks28 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable novels

[edit]

Over the next couple days I plan to look through a large chunk of the novels to identify the ones that may survive at AFD and the ones that wouldn't. Then I'll file a bundle nomination.

Batch 1

[edit]

Salvageable

[edit]
  1. Doctor Who and the Pirates (audio book not book)
  2. The Silent Stars Go By (Abnett novel)
  3. Return of the Living Dad (sent to AFD for resercrh purposes)
  4. History 101 (novel)

Unnotable

[edit]
  1. Apollo 23
  2. The King's Dragon
  3. Mad Dogs and Englishmen (novel)
  4. Matrix (Perry and Tucker novel)
  5. Peacemaker (novel)
  6. Parasite (Mortimore novel)
  7. Evolution (Peel novel)
  8. Happy Endings (novel)
  9. Speed of Flight
  10. Martha in the Mirror
  11. Managra
  12. The Deviant Strain
  13. Heritage (novel)
  14. Winner Takes All (novel)
  15. Only Human (novel)
  16. The Stealers of Dreams
  17. The Price of Paradise
  18. The Nightmare of Black Island
  19. Escape Velocity (novel)
  20. Placebo Effect (novel)

Batch 1 complete. Out of 25 checked 4 were usable, not a great sign... Well at that rate the project is on track to becoming the next WP:TV taskforce Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 2

[edit]
I am going to look through the 11th and 12th Doctor novels to help. (also removed a book you had repeated twice). P.S. I have checked around ten dozen articles in the last three months, around 80 of which were tagged with failing notability, and also had no sources after I checked.

Notable

[edit]
  1. The Blood Cell (12th)
  2. The Angel's Kiss: A Melody Malone Mystery (might be better merged)
  3. The Silent Stars Go By (Abnett novel)
  4. The Coming of the Terraphiles

Unnotable

[edit]
  1. Apollo 23
  2. Nuclear Time
  3. Night of the Humans
  4. Hunter's Moon (Finch novel)
  5. The Forgotten Army (definite delete, as a redirect would be bad)
  6. Dead of Winter (Goss novel)
  7. The Glamour Chase
  8. Paradox Lost
  9. The Way Through the Woods (McCormack novel)
There probably needs to be a taskforce, as most book stubs under the project are un notable. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 3

[edit]

I will note that the salvageable section is the articles I think may have a chance at AFD I would bet that atleast one of them would go down. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of these, two reviews is needed to establish notability. Would DWM count towards that? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DWM is not independent, so I would assume it can't be used to establish notability. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s technically independent in a wobbly wibbly sense. It’s officially licensed but published by Panini Comics not the BBC. Though it more or less has been considered an official magazine Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the BBC authorizes Panini to publish them- if they wanted, they could just allow someone else to do so- the licensing of DWM by BBC is probably gonna last as long as the show itself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably longer, if issues 156 to 353 are any indication. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of DW book stubs that exist, not to mention the BF audios, Wilderness Years 2.0 will have even more stories than now. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant for the books that are guaranteed non-notable, I'd suggest BLARing them since they're very obviously non-notable if they have next to no coverage, and the BLAR process means we don't have to dedicate as many AfDs to this subject. For the other books, or for any guaranteed non-notable you feel may be controversial, I'd suggest sending them by AfD if you still feel they aren't notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
noted. I'll begin getting through batch 1. I'll put some of the ones that may survive AFD at AFD to see just to be safe. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Random comment, but what's the depth of coverage for Human Nature? It might be worthwhile merging it to Human Nature (Doctor Who) since that is a definitely notable subject and Human Nature's novel has significant overlap in with the episode. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for it, and might have found one source, of it starting out as a fanfiction (though there might be more sources, but they are buried underneath such a common phrase). Every other source in the article mentions the adaption, so a merge would be best- might be good to start a merger proposal, and pinging the wikiproject. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have it, here's the entry from my private book list:
I bought it soon after it was published, at the time I was buying each of the "New Adventures"/"Missing Adventures" as they came out. I stopped when I had piled up about fifty, and have still not read them all. Human Nature is still on my "unread" list, although I loved the TV episode (I picked up the "My parents were Sydney and Verity" line immediately, without having to wind back to hear it again). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salvagable

[edit]
  1. The Cabinet of Light
  2. Human Nature (novel)
  3. The Krillitane Storm
  4. The Doctor Trap
  5. Beautiful Chaos (Russell novel)

Unnotable

[edit]
  1. The Dalek Factor
  2. Blood and Hope
  3. Shell Shock (novella)
  4. Wonderland (novella)
  5. Foreign Devils (novella)
  6. Time and Relative
  7. Synthespians™
  8. The Infinity Doctors
  9. Palace of the Red Sun
  10. Blue Box (novel) (I will admit there may be sources buried under other things)
  11. Spiral Scratch (novel)
  12. I am a Dalek
  13. Code of the Krillitanes
  14. Sting of the Zygons
  15. Wetworld
  16. The Pirate Loop
  17. Shining Darkness
  18. The Slitheen Excursion
  19. Prisoner of the Daleks
  20. The Eyeless

Barnstar

[edit]

Anyone know that this existed?

Found it by accident when browsing commons. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant I had seen it on some older talk pages but I had assumed it had been retired or fallen out of fashion since it wasn't present on our main page. It might be worth bringing back given the work so many edtors have been doing lately. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could throw a mention of the barnstar template in the newsletter to bring more awareness to it? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that would be great! Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pick up a review

[edit]

I was looking over some the list and reliesed if we can get two more GAs by the end of the year we will have had our second most GAs in a year with 21. Beating 2012 (36) may be out of reach as it would require significantly more planning and strategy and suitable writing topics. And to be fair 2012 did have some reviews that possibly may not have been up to code Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on Last Christmas (as there is going to be a Christmas DYK set), so I'll probably review one after that's done; those could be our two reviews. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can take on one of the reviews later today. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 and OlifanofmrTennant: I was wondering, given that we all are actively editing- I could review the 2022 specials and Pokelego999 could review series 14. We would just have series 13 and the list left then, which are both being worked on, and series 15, which would just need to be peer-reviewed due to it being inherently unstable pre-broadcast. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we just have to wait on S15 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be around August/September 2025 by the time we have enough info for that to be a GA, by which time series 16 would probably already be in mainspace. We could restrict the topic to broadcasted series perhaps, or peer review it per WP:GT?#3c, as is suggested on the goals page. But we can decide on that later when the remaining 3.5 articles and lists get reviewed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be down to review Series 14 Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We did it! Now all we have to do to beat 2012 is pay off some reviewers Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, if we really wanted to beat 2012, we could try to get four people to commit to nominating one GA a month. We can't necessarily it would work if the reviews don't get picked up, but if successful we'd have 48 new GA's by the end of the year. Some may even be able to help out reviewing the other nominations, like we did here. You mentioned needing suitable writing topics but we have plenty of suggestions over at WP:WHO/G, we could just let people write over whatever they wanted to (episodes, characters, season/series, etc). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be down to contribute to this goal. I already tend to pump out some content for the Project as is, so making it a consistent goal would be good to aim for. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this absolutely insane idea were to occur then maybe we could shoot for a "get X amount of articles to B class or better" that some other projects do. But I would like to reiterate the sheer scale of the idea is doomed to fail. On the other hand it would be very funny. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel just keeping to this kind of "48 GAs" minimum is a good goal for now. We're a smaller project, and we only have under ten active members. We shouldn't push ourselves too hard, or we may risk losing motivation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about a bunch of goals with this being the last or second last milestone? Something like get Doctor Who (back) to FA, being the last goal? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this may lead to the bar being rasied a little too high. I think 48 GAs itself is an insane goal. Looking at the options it may be doable. Earlier in the year was basiclly did a GAN a week. Assuming nothing gets reviewed we already have 6 GANs in the can and we could make use of the Wikipedia:Good article review circles. Once again this is a crazy stupid idea that is both crazy and stupid and I'm all in

CultBox

[edit]

Is CultBox reliable guys? I have only seen 2-3 writer names there, they don't have a "About Us" page, or barely any other social media, and it seems to be a blog. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's used it quite a bit in DW related articles, I have no question to its reliability. I can't speak to its back end processes or editorial standards, though. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I have doubts regarding its reliability. It essentially appears to be an entertainment blog, with no obvious editorial policy or oversight, and no list of writers. It seems like a great aggregator of information from other sources (Doctor Who Magazine, radio and television interviews, etc.), but I would be cautious about using it too much as an immediate source on Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Its info seems accurate and I don't doubt its authenticity, but without any ability to verify that, we can't really in good conscience use it as a source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned the reliability, I strictly meant that what they say typically ends up panning out. I understand however, and do share, the potential concerns about it's lack of editorial standards (the FAQ page seems to suggest that you can write for the page by filling out their contact form). The website's favicon is also the WP:WORDPRESS logo, and the fact that some of it's aggregation information (as mentioned above) are from unverified Twitter accounts, which could cause further concerns.
I feel it's also worth noting that depreciating this source would likely take some time as I believe it's more widely used than Doctor Who News, which we've been depreciating since earlier this year. A lot of the information we do use this source for (filming blocks, directors, filming locations, etc.) is published elsewhere less frequently. Not saying we shouldn't depreciate just based on that, just that it's something to plan for. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more that we do not use CultBox as a source from now on- I have made edits on past episode articles, and alternate sources are usually present, though sometimes difficult to find. Discontinuing it would help in not having to replace it again and again. Another reason I asked about it is because if CultBox is determined as un-reliable, it would be easier to remove if alternate refs are already present, instead of being added alongside it. The info is correct, so it can stay until it is gradually removed, just like DWN. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
F, should have waited a few more days it seems, it's info is always reliable enough, just not the editorial reliablity. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of an aside yet sort of related question: should we include a disclaimer in our suggested sources bank discouraging the use of certain sources? Primarily fansites (Like Doctor Who TV) and blogs (Such as Cultbox, which seems to have an unreliable consensus so far). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should, as well as update the style guide too, would be helpful to link to if some new editor tries to add these sources. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Make sure to avoid using content from user-generated websites, such as fansites like Doctor Who TV, which has content generated entirely by fans with no form of credentials, and blogs from websites such as CultBox, which are personal opinions of the authors, who may or may not have credentials. Content from these websites written by authors who can be verified as having experience, whether that be by being a journalist, a known academic or by being a topic expert, are permitted to be used on a case by case basis."
Would this be good to add? I believe we've settled that CultBox is unreliable for now, so unless there's any objections, I feel it's best we leave it at that and work to remove CultBox sources from articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with the proposed wording. The only thing I might suggest is noting the distinction between doctorwho.tv and doctorwhotv.co.uk. As I said on the series 14 review page, both websites typically list "Doctor Who TV" as the |work=. The former is acceptable as a primary source while the latter isn't. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Maybe something like "like Doctor Who TV (not to be confused with the official website)" in a hyperlink. Alternatively, we can swap a different fansite in, like Blogtor Who or smth similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with either or both of those sections. I don't see the harm in listing more than one fansite, honestly. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an unfortunate situation and removal of sourced content. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a shame because I appreciate CultBox's coverage and think they do a good job, but their standards are just not enough for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the side of it being reliable, as nothing has proved it otherwise, that must have been a miscommunication. I don't think I've seen a single policy quoted in this discussion. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." (Key bit here is the lack of editorial oversight, due to a lack of notable editorial policies on the site). As this appears to be a blog site, it also falls under Wikipedia:SELFPUB. This technically isn't the same thing, but even if we were to deem the CultBox brand name reliable, it would still fail Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG due to not having professional writers. Let me know if I'm incorrect in any assessment here and I'll correct my argument. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it questionable, not unreliable, and it's far from self-published, as that refers to work that is (evidentally titled) published about themselves.
I recognize the consensus here, but my view is simply that this WikiProject is causing its own eventual doom on creating future articles. If you find yourself relying on only "official" sources, I wish everyone the best in developing articles concerning anything behind-the-scenes. Series 16 (Season 3, 2026) may be a very short article indeed.
All the best! -- Alex_21 TALK 02:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All guidelines discussing questionable sources state that sources that are questionable should not be used, with very few exceptions. If there's reasonable doubt as to our ability to use the source, then it's better that we don't use it at all.
Also, how is this "causing eventual doom"? We have a bevy of reliable sources (Radio Times, Den of Geek, Digital Spy, The Guardian, IGN, Total Film, and a large number more). Removing a few unreliable sources keeps us functioning within Wikipedia guidelines, and is far from removing our Behind the Scenes coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example I'm curious about, the Audience Index scores sourced through Doctor Who TV. What's the plan with that, now that the source is "unreliable"? Keep it unsourced, or mass remove important content? -- Alex_21 TALK 03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure myself since I was barely involved with that discussion, but if the info can't be sourced, it can't be sourced. That's about as plain and simple as it gets. Remove unsourced content and find replacements where feasible. If the information doesn't exist outside of unreliable sources, then there's not much can be done. I am uncertain what replacements exist since, again, I was not involved much with that discussion, but I'm sure someone else involved more with it can give a more concrete answer than me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How very unfortunate of this WikiProject. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those last few lines read rather passive aggressive Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that contribution here, it added a lot. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it's disappointing the source has been determined to be unsuitable for use, as well as that it may lead to the removal of content. I mentioned both of these things in my original response above. However, and more importantly, we are providing a disservice to our readers by using sources that aren't up to par.
"it's far from self-published, as that refers to work that is (evidentally titled) published about themselves." - is also an incorrect assessment. Wikipedia's articles on self-publishing even states that it is the publication of media by its author at their own cost, without the involvement of a publisher. The term usually refers to written media, such as books and magazines, either as an ebook or as a physical copy using print on demand technology. It may also apply to albums, pamphlets, brochures, games, video content, artwork, and zines. Web fiction is also a major medium for self-publishing. Self-publishing merely means that it's published by the author, not that it's about the author. This differs from an author writing for say Radio Times, where it's published by someone other than the author. Even if said wrote an autobiography for Radio Times, it still wouldn't be "self-published". TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're using actual Wikipedia articles as definitions of policies now? How unfortunate. The removal of relevant content will continue to prove detrimental, but "providing a disservice" does seem to be the consensus here. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want other sources, Merriam-Webster defines it as "to publish (a book) using the author's own resources", while the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher". This is a pretty clear-cut definition all things considered. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not, while I may be misinterpreting it, I believe that WP:SPS confirms my understanding of it, I just felt the Wikipedia article provided an easier to understand definition. WP:SPS is a policy and it says "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." Nowhere does it say that self-published sources only consist of autobiographies, because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I'd like to again note how WP:WORDPRESS links to the aforementioned policy and that CultBox's favicon is the Wordpress logo. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AI has not been released for series 14 wasn't released on the Doctor Who fan site either though. And as for CultBox- the sources are either given, or are tweets or photos from the official channel, or by fans. You are acting as though CultBox creates info of its own, whereas we would just need to go one source deeper in most cases. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Elements Inclusion Criteria

[edit]

After discussing this with @Jontesta, I figured I'd start some form of discussion here regarding this. Following numerous AfDs, we currently have the following lists remaining: Companion (Doctor Who), List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, List of Doctor Who supporting characters, and List of Torchwood characters.

As of right now, all of these lists are... frankly in a terrible state. I tried improving the aliens list a while ago, but it was a very insurmountable task on my own. In terms of each list, however, I figured I'd iron out inclusion criteria and article content the WikiProject feels will be beneficial for each article to have, so that way a workload and work plan can be determined with greater clarity.

-The Companion article is largely acting as a table list right now, with a lot of bloat in its content. What content should this article cover? Should it be made into a list, with a proper proseline discussing each character? Or should it be ironed out into a more in-depth focus on the role, with the list being either a separate article, or remaining in its informationless block format?

-The aliens article's inclusion criteria is iffy. It was called into question during its AfD; during a later discussion with @Toughpigs it was determined to narrow its scope to just DW monsters with some form of recurring role. I feel its criteria may be worth discussing with the Project, especially given a recent proposal to rebrand this into "Whoniverse" creatures, as well as the possibility of narrowing down inclusion criteria given how many of these monsters have reappeared in spin-off media.

-The supporting characters list is shit. It'll need a rewrite from the ground up, of which I've got a draft cooking, but it's something that's just inherently a massive project to work out. What should criteria be for inclusion? Anyone who's recurring? Should there be an appearances cap (Two or three minimum)? Should it include characters sometimes considered companions like Sara Kingdom and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart? This kind of thing needs to be determined before work can begin.

-The Torchwood list is bloated with a lot of one-off characters, and the information here is potentially feasible to cover at Torchwood for main characters and notable supporting ones. It should be determined how much content here is necessary and if a merger is feasible. If deemed notable, what inclusion criteria should exist for characters? This list is in a weird spot, especially given the Sarah Jane Adventures list closed at AfD recently, so an idea of what we're doing with it should be determined.

Let me know y'all's thoughts on this, since I'd appreciate a gameplan for these articles so we know how to proceed going forward. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My views are:
-Companion- ironed out into an in-depth focus on the role, with the table remaining (though the other section media needs to be way, way shorter), bcs I don't think there would be any unique data for the list, as most of the companions will be covered in their own articles, the companion article itself, or on the article of the seasons they appeared in
-aliens- remove those without sources, or which are generic. Keep recurring ones, and if possible, ones that might be too complicated to explain shortly in the articles of the episode they appeared in
-Looks great, should have recurring characters, and the sort-of companions like Kingdom and the Brigadier (the list looks great btw, nice job!)
-I barely know about Torchwood, but I feel like it should be notable enough to have a list of its characters kept- the article needs severe de-bloating, and probably someone who has actually seen the show, before a final decision can be made
P.s. Great job on trying to make the WP less bloated. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 Question on Aliens: Could you clarify which fall under "generic"? Additionally, do you feel recurring should include spin-off media, or only those from the television series?
As a note, I forgot to ask this in my nom, but should spin-off characters be included in the supporting characters list? Stuff like Beep and Kate have to be included, but I'm not sure what spin-off only characters should be included given how many characters spin-off media has. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generic like Vespiform(big wasp), Varga (cactus-like), Trees(humanoid trees), all the human looking species etc. Way more emphasis on the TV series- spin-off only if there are a lot (say 7-8 min) appearances.
Same as above for supporting characters- around 8-10 appearances min for a non-TV character to appear. (I'm not actually sure Beep should be included- a TV appearance and 2-3 very old comics, if I remember correctly- does not seem to be notable in itself) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly been trying to phase out the human-like species but the others I'm not sure on since it's kind of OR-y to try and determine what constitutes as too generic of an entity to list Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True that it's kind of OR-y but we can use it for edge cases- the Vashta Nerada probably should be included- but not the Varga plant. And most/all human like species are also edge cases- like Trakenite isn't notable, even though one probably appeared in more stories than almost every Doctor Who adversary. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, even the human-like thing is iffy. Like, the Time Lords resemble humans and yet are major players in the show. I agree that not every random civilization in the show's history needs to be there, but we need some more definite form of criteria for this kind of thing. I feel it's better to keep it strictly to an appearance identifier or something similar, and then work from there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think theres really a one size fits all criteria and its more of a case by case basis. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- like the show's history is vast and diverse- there are a lot of edge cases that might have to be discussed on the article's talk page itself- but for most of it, we could follow a general guideline instead of a strict criteria. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a general appearances guideline to eliminate most of the obvious questionable inclusions, and then iron out specific inclusions from there? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems the best option. I'd be willing to lend a hand with creatures. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help with creatures and aliens too, as well as the other two non-torchwood ones. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the list more, the general guideline can be-at least two TV appearances (unless it can be shown to have sigcov, or a lot of spin-off appearances), no separate entries for the same kinds of creature(so all human-like species would come under Human, unless they can be shown as sufficiently different). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So:
-Two significant television appearances
-If not, then if they appear in spin-off material enough (8-10 appearances might be a nice baseline but I'd have to see on that)
-Any unique exceptions that would need to be discussed separately Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and 8-10 is just to add a concrete number, bcs non-TV appearances aren't all equivalent, more like spin-off>audio>books>comics and so on. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider it worthwhile to rebrand into a Whoniverse list? If we keep the two television appearances criteria, it would include a few Torchwood and Sarah Jane monsters, such as the Bane and Weevils. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should depend on the size of the list- if the list is nowhere near split size, a spin off section would be good. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant do you agree with DoctorWhoFan on this or do you have any differing thoughts on the matter? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I'm never in favor of rebranding anything to Whoniverse I think its a stupid name. and also that if the list is trimmed down to only what can be reliably sourced it extremely likely to be able to fit a spin off section without being split. Either way I do not think that spin off monsters should be intergrated to the main list. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe it best to stick to DWFan's inclusion criteria for the time being? If so I'll start tomorrow on figuring out something more concrete for that list. I'll figure out a spin-off section when things are more ironed out on the rest of the list.
Any thoughts on the other lists as well? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with it and have no thoughts as to the other list Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant and @DoctorWhoFan91 still need to check Appearances on a few. For the most part, the bulk of these are one-offs, but I do feel the spin-off threshold should be lowered since so few appear in 7+. Maybe like 5+ onward?
Additionally, there's a few characters with stipulations I wished to check:
-Does the Great Intelligence count more as a character or as an alien?
-Should the Guardians be included, or should it be removed since we only ever see two (The Black and White Guardians)
-Should the Hoix be included given they appear predominantly in one Who and one Torchwood episode (Alongside various cameos)
-Should the Mentors be included? The primary one is Sil, but multiple other Mentors appear in stories alongside Sil.
-Should multi-story monsters like the Toclafane and Monks be included? A redirect for them is difficult since they have multiple appearances despite it all being one story.
-Should the Movellans and P'ting be counted? (One major role and one cameo each)
-Should the Stenza be included? While they have a big role in The Ghost Monument, none physically appear bar Tim Shaw, who is a separate individual character.
-Should the Sycorax be included? While they only have one major TV role, they cameo incredibly frequently throughout the series, moreso than most other monsters.
-Should the Teselecta be included? They're more of a character than an alien or creature. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5+ is good, 7+ was me just saying in a random number-
-Teselecta would be a character probabaly
- For the Sycorax, Movellans and P'ting- perhaps half-one sentence in their og story, of how they have made some/one cameos since.
-Is Tim Shaw really separable if he is the only one that appears? They are related, just talk about Tim Shaw under Stenza too
-No, not for one-story monsters- redirect Toclafane to LotTL, and Monks to Pyramid or Lie, I don't remember in which they were more prominent
- Umm, seems like the mentors were only in Vengeance on Varos, so no need to include
-Hoix-yeah, two stories on TV seem prominent, even if only one is on DW
- Guardians- no need to describe White and Black under diff sections, so keep it
- Great Intelligence feels more like a charcter, I think- it's not like other GIs are running around, or are described as existing, I think. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 Mentors were also in Mindwarp. Sil also had his own film technically. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, I have not watched either story, and the internet is not being helpful with this. If they have been in 2 stories, probably keep them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, I've gathered up a list. The following have had at least two major television appearances (Or have some other exception per discussion).
Aggedor, Catkind, Cybermen, Dalek, Eternal, Graske, Guardian, Hoix, Ice Warrior, Judoon, Macra, Mechonoid, Mentor, Movellan, Nestene, Ogron, Ood, P’ting, Raxicoricofallapatorian, Roboform, Sea Devil, Silence, Silurian, Sisterhood of Karn, Sontaran, Stenza, Sycorax, Thal, Time Lord, Tivolian, Varga Plant, Voord, Weeping Angel, Zygon.
Some entities have appeared a lot (Like Cybermats or the Skarasen) but are better off included as a sub-cat of one of the above species.
From a brief glance at the lists of appearances, the following also seem to be decent candidates:
Draconian, Drashig, Great Vampire, Krillitane, Fendahl, Kroton, Krynoid, Wirrn, Zarbi, Toclafane, Terileptil, Sandminer Robot, Quark, Vashta Nerada.
I'd appreciate a double check on the last group, especially to see if their appearances meet a minimum five or seven tally, and if there's anyone else eligible for this group that I've missed. Right now the only hard guarantees are on the Quarks and Sandminer Robots. Additionally, let me know if you feel anything should be removed from this selection. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should P'ting and Sycorax really count? Just make them into redirects for "Tsurnga Conundrum" and "Christmas Invasion" respectively? Vashta Nerada seems to be a good candidate to keep. I have no other views on the one-story characters, and for the bigger recurring ones- it's of course keep. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sycorax barely meets the five major spin-off roles criteria at least. P'ting not so much. I'll add Movellan and Pting to the redirect group Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant @DoctorWhoFan91 Per discussion, I have created User:Pokelego999/sandbox/Doctor Who Aliens List Rewrite Doc. This will provide the bones of a rewritten list. I would appreciate help with this since even with a smaller scope it's an incredibly large topic to cover. Even just doing source gathering for any given entity greatly helps my workload with this list. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Articles for Deletion

[edit]

Per the Lost in Time AfD discusion earlier on this talk page, I am notifying the WikiProject of several ongoing AfDs for the characters of the Autons, Sergeant Benton, Mike Yates, and Vislor Turlough. Any input in these discussions is appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent Death's Hand to AFD and am considered sending Kroton (Cyberman) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going slow with the AfD nominations would be good in my view, to give interested participants enough time to provide informed opinions. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Primarily why I stopped after Turlough even though there's a few more articles I'm suspect of. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community spoofs

[edit]

So while searching for possible GA topics I remembered Community did a few Doctor Who parodies and was wondering if they would fall under the scope of WP:DRWHO

Any thoughts? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of spoofs of Doctor Who. Milo Murphy's Law for instance has several episodes and whole characters dedicated to theirs. I'm not sure if these ones are noteworthy enough to warrant our involvement due to how many there are, so I'll leave that up to the others to figure out. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the difference here is as far as I am aware the only spoofs that are notable to warrent their own articles are Curse of the Fatal Death (which was offically licensed) and the Community episodes. Regardless I do have plans to work on "Conventions in Space and Time" anyways Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they would not. This is trainspotting. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Doctor_Who&oldid=1264798446"