Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 26 February 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Doctor Who is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 16, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted March 1, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted July 3, 2009 Featured article review Demoted February 9, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 9, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed September 6, 2013 Peer review Not reviewed November 1, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed November 26, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WP1.0 Template:WikiProject British TV shows Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Doctor Who Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. BBC High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Science Fiction High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media franchises Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cardiff Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Doctor Who was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 August 2013.

[REDACTED]

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style Muir, John Kenneth. Critical History of Doctor Who on Television. McFarland & Co, Inc. 2007 ISBN 978-0-7864-3716-0 Gouchera, Wendy. "Keeping Doctor Who's secrets". Computer Fraud & Security. vol. 2008, iss. 9, Sep. 2008, pp 13–15.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Doctor Who heals US networks". Variety. 8 February 2008.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 23, 2007, November 23, 2009, November 23, 2010, and November 23, 2015.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Doctor Who article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Material from Doctor Who was split to List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Doctor_Who on 6 December 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Categorizing as Gay- or Lesbian-related

Since AlexTheWhovian restored a bold addition made by Pyxis Solitary on November 25 when trying to restore the article to a state before the recent categorization disputes and I don't feel like edit-warring over anything, I'm bringing this here. While gay, lesbian and bisexual characters have appeared on the show, none of those appearances defined the show per WP:CATDEF, so I'm proposing we restore the old status quo and remove any such categories from the page. Pinging @DonQuixote and Roscelese who were also involved. Regards SoWhy 08:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

These inclusions do seem like they do not meet WP:CATDEF and should be removed. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe these categories would be better-placed on the articles for individual series? Doctor Who (series 10) is notably lesbian-related even if none of the preceding 35 series are. —Flax5 12:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in ] in the same way that it shouldn't be in the ]. It features characters with those traits, but it's not a defining characteristic of the programme (or even series 10). DonQuixote (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above; this should not be in the LGBT-related categories as a program, but definitely some characters (Bill, Jack) can be put appropriately into the LGBT-related ones. I had issues before with Pyrix's mass tagging of TV programs claiming that just because there was a LGBT character that that made the show about LBGT themes which is absolutely not universally true. --Masem (t) 16:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that it does not belong in the category. PS has not grasped the WP:CATDEF statement "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose". MarnetteD|Talk 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll add to the growing agreement. As a comparison, you wouldn't put it in Category:Television shows set in London because some episodes are set there, although it would be reasonable to have EastEnders there. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is non-defining of the show. Doctor Who is also not a show about, to name a couple of other things, the Victorian era, lizards, Roman Britain, etc. The appropriate thing to do would be to list Bill in the "Fictional lesbians" category, where I see she already is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the emerging consensus, although I am reminded of that Paul Cornell quote... what was it? Something like: all Dr Who fandom is gay, or at least all interesting Dr Who fandom is gay. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Editors here are invited to participate in the discussion at Category talk:Gay-related television programs. The discussion is aimed at clearing up the inclusion criteria for that category to prevent issues such as the one that resulted in this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Good job guys! 😊 Double Plus Ungood (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"List of Doctor Who characters"

I notice that a page like this for Doctor Who doesn't exist which surprised me since a lot of other shows have extensive ones. However there is a page called List of Doctor Who cast members which is a bit of a mess aside from the main overview table(s). There's just random incomplete tables and little to no information. Obviously there's been hundreds of actors to appear in the show and not all of them will need to be listed (perhaps all the main characters and notable side characters who've had recurring roles). This is a chance to revamp the article (possibly changing the name "cast" to "characters") or perhaps even making a new page from scratch.

I started a discussion thread a few minutes ago with some proposals so if I could kindly direct people over there to discuss it that'd be great. It's not a very high traffic page and it seems most editors have disregarded it since it appears to be an un-salvageable mess. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a List of Doctor Who villains and Companion (Doctor Who). DonQuixote (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your post TME. After 54 years of episodes such a list would be immense. Along with the the two articles that DQ has mentioned there are several others listed in the Template:Doctor Who. Breaking them into smaller groups has been deemed the best way to handle things. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

If you read the small discussion over at List of Doctor Who cast members, they have decided to start a Draft:List of Doctor Who characters. I don't disagree that things may need to be cleaned up slightly (there are always improvements to be made). But improvements to the current few pages, rather that a reproduction of the information in a new page might be more warranted. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, we have started to create Draft:List of Doctor Who characters with the intention to replace the List of Doctor Who cast members page upon completion. That page is just a mess and the characters page will be an brief overview of all the Doctor's and companions and notable guests in one place. It's gonna take time but I think it's necessary. If anybody has any thoughts it'd be appreciated. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We've already got The Doctor (Doctor Who) and Companion (Doctor Who). Sorry, I don't what Draft:List of Doctor Who characters adds to those? Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't suppose you've looked at the Companion (Doctor Who) page, but it's different. That has an overview of the companions in a table. On this new page, there'll be a short description/overview of each character much like List of Game of Thrones characters. As for comparisons, to The Doctor (Doctor Who), it's not like that at all. This new page will essentially be a replacement for the List of Doctor Who cast members page which will be deleted upon publication of Draft:List of Doctor Who characters. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I did look at those other pages and they seem to do a good job. We want WP:OUTUNIVERSE prose, not just tables and not just plot re-tellings.

Why not just trim List of Doctor Who cast members, removing the alphabetical sections of non-recurring people, and then rename List of Doctor Who cast members to List of Doctor Who characters? That would seem a simpler way to go about this.

I'm not certain that List of Game of Thrones characters is a good model to follow. The plot summaries under each character are unreadable, too long and too WP:INUNIVERSE. Please nothing like that! Bondegezou (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's essentially the idea. We were going to rename the page but realised it'd take a long time to build it up. I guess the information we have could be copied over. The general idea is to include casting information and reappearances etc. i.e. WP:OUTUNIVERSE like you've said. It's not intended to be a full biography for every character. But it's a massive job and will take time - so after the draft page is completed we'll figure out what to do with it. Whatever happens, List of Doctor Who cast members will have to go. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Delia Derbyshire

Jfdouble added some content about Delia Derbyshire's contribution to the Dr Who theme, which Mezigue has now reverted. The addition cited a Guardian article that says:

"She went on to transform a written score by Ron Grainer for a new TV series, Doctor Who, into an iconic piece of electronic music.

"Due to BBC policies at the time, Grainer – unwillingly – is still officially credited as the sole writer."

That looks to me to be a sufficient RS citation in support of Jfdouble's edit. I also found this, which says:

"Derbyshire’s career landmark was, of course, her electronic rendition of Ron Grainer’s “Doctor Who” theme. “Did I really write this?”, an amazed Grainer inquired after first hearing her version of his most famous melody, with Derbyshire answering the question, “Most of it.”

"

"Grainer himself stated that Derbyshire should be credited with half the royalties for co-writing the song, but this conflicted with the BBC’s policies. She was only credited as ‘special sound by BBC Radiophonic Workshop.’"

And there are further sources supporting this. I thus would support restoring Jfdouble's edit. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

That's already mentioned in the article(s). We shouldn't give her co-composer credit until reliable sources commonly and consistently do so. DonQuixote (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what that means in practice. I've given you two reliable sources above. There are others: it is commonly reported in modern sources. Is that not enough to support Jfdouble's edit? Bondegezou (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It has to do with due weight. Currently, whenever sources discuss the theme they mention that it was composed by Grainer with some of them mentioning later on the above as an anecdote. We should reflect what the reliable sources are saying. If and when it changes such that reliable sources commonly and consistently mention that the theme was composed by Grainer and Derbyshire as co-composers from the start, then we should change our articles to reflect that. DonQuixote (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that was pretty much my thinking. Mezigue (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent articles about the theme (and not just mentioning it in passing) usually talk about Derbyshire in my experience. I also don't see any references disputing the case for Derbyshire. WP:DUE is satisfied as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Focusing on recent articles, I found the following supporting the suggested edit:

• http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4422830/doctor-who-theme-s-co-creator-delia-derbyshire-awarded-posthumous-phd-1.4423377
• https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3021625/electronic-pioneer-delia-derbyshire-awarded-posthumous-phd
• http://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2017-11-21/doctor-who-theme-co-composer-honoured-delia-derbyshire-honorary-phd/
• http://www.rhinegold.co.uk/classical_music/delia-derbyshire-honoured-posthumous-phd/
• http://www.alphr.com/art/1007731/doctor-who-co-composer-and-musical-pioneer-awarded-posthumous-phd
• https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/nov/20/delia-derbyshire-doctor-who-theme-co-creator-posthumous-phd
• https://ww2.kqed.org/pop/2017/07/18/the-13th-doctor-who-is-a-woman-but-the-show-has-had-female-pioneers-from-the-very-beginning/
• https://doctorwhowatch.com/2016/07/26/doctor-who-peter-capaldi-wants-the-middle-eight-back-in-the-theme-music/ (but does it meet RS?)
• http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-08-30/20-doctor-who-pop-classics/
• http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/doctor-who/feature/a589742/the-musical-world-of-doctor-who-from-ron-grainer-to-the-klf/
• https://www.list.co.uk/article/59489-interview-roger-limb-of-the-radiophonic-workshop/
• http://www.houstonpress.com/arts/doctor-who-the-5-most-important-women-behind-the-scenes-6383315

Other articles note Derbyshire's role but don't go as far in their wording. This and this give the "Did I really write this?" quote from Grainer. The former words it as, "Rob Grainer — whose composition Derbyshire worked from to create the theme".

The latter of those and here talk of Derbyshire's "realisation" of the theme. While this article goes with "rendition". Here talks of her "interpretation". And here sticks with "arranged".

All that seems to me to warrant wording more inclusive of Derbyshire's role than the present text. Bondegezou (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of those sources refer to her work as realising the theme (arranger or performer) rather than co-composer. Also, articles specifically about the theme (and independent of Derbyshire) that mention her as co-composer would probably hold more weight. DonQuixote (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, they don't. Most of those articles clearly talk about her as more than an arranger or performer. The initial list of 12 all are stronger than that. They refer to as a co-composer and/or as someone who should have been credited as such were it not for BBC policy and/or that Grainer wanted her to be so recognised. I then listed 4 I'd found that do go with an arranger/performer line, and 2 in between. 12 > 4. If you feel there are recent articles taking a different tack that I've missed, please do share them. Bondegezou (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The enquirer: is known to Whovians everywhere as the architect behind the arrangement of Ron Grainger's Doctor Who theme

Rhinegold: One of her first works was her 1963 realisation of Ron Grainer’s theme tune for Doctor Who

alphr: Derbyshire’s most well known work is the transformation of Ron Grainer’s score for Doctor Who

KQED: hough a man named Ron Grainer had written the score, Derbyshire so transformed it that Grainer was said to have asked her, “Did I really write this?” etc.

Although a few mention Grainer still remains the only writer, it's not directly citeable in terms of "co-composer". All that's really needed is better sources with less interpretation. It's better to have a solid basis for things like this. DonQuixote (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate all the thoughtful discussion and agree with Bondegezou that Derbyshire's contribution be made more obvious. The impetus for my original request was this article about her being awarded a posthumous honorary doctorate from Coventry University, which includes a quote that she "went on to transform a written score by Ron Grainer for the new series, Doctor Who, into an iconic piece of electronic music":

• http://www.coventry.ac.uk/primary-news/celebrating-delia-university-honours-electronic-music-pioneer-behind-doctor-who-theme/

I felt that this page should also provide the appropriate recognition of her role as an uncredited composer, as supported by all the citations above (now 13:4?). I think significant weight should also be given to those that mention Grainer's support.

Can I replace my edits, "Unfortunately, even though Grainer was willing, the BBC would not allow Derbyshire to receive co-composer credit" and "Delia Derbyshire (uncredited)", since they acknowledge the uncredited nature of the situation, or something similar that you would propose, Mezigue or DonQuixote? Jfdouble (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is for simple information, and as such, IMO the first version, where it's mentioned in the article in prose, is better. Although, "unfortunately" should probably be edited out. DonQuixote (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I've boldly added it to the prose. DonQuixote (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002317/http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/03/doctor-who-returns-steven-moffat-talks-new-companion-clara-and-jenna-louise-coleman.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/2013/03/doctor-who-returns-steven-moffat-talks-new-companion-clara-and-jenna-louise-coleman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Seeing how the episodes of The Simpsons were split into two articles (List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (for seasons 21–present)), it made me wonder if we should again think about splitting List of Doctor Who serials.

Many of the arguments against it was that the classic and revived era were the same show, but looking at the given example, the list may be improved if they were split, both in content and performance. As "classic" and "revived" aren't official terms, perhaps something like List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1996) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) would suffice? -- Alex 06:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral on this - could probably be convinced either way. Looks like it is a 3 second page generation time (from the page source "CPU time usage: 2.804 seconds; Real time usage: 3.037 seconds") - so it doesn't seem so bad - but I assume it will occur at some point (we are currently at 66% of the allowed "Post‐expand include size"). The suggestion would be the most logical place to split it. While I will point out "classic" is definitely used by the BBC to refer to pre-2005 - however it is probably more appropriate to adopt your recommended titles if this was to proceed. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The split might be useful, but the terminology could present some issues. Not all of the Doctor Who programmes which aired between '63 and '96 were serials. Further, should consideration be given to 'future-proofing' a listing from '05 onward in case the show adopts a serial format at some point? Sprite96 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The majority were serials in the classic era and that fact alone has managed to keep the current list with the label "Serials" even though it hasn't at all accurate for 28 years - so I don't think that it would need to change. I mean we are talking two specials and one single episode (unless I'm forgetting something?). I don't think we need to future proof - as the list can always be renamed if actually needed. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

While reading Sprite96's comment, I started thinking the same thing that Dresken posted before I read Dresken's post - the article has lived with the "serials" title up until now, even with the entirety of the revived era (bar one) being aired as episodes. So, splitting them into a classic serials article would mean that a higher percentage of the episodes listed actually are serials.

The other alternative is that given that we list episodes by story number, rather than number episode overall (as the majority of other television series do), we could use List of Doctor Who stories (1963–1996) and List of Doctor Who stories (2005–present); however, disambiguation would be required to note that we are listing television stories. -- Alex 10:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We could always use "episodes" for both pages. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 03:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

True, as the classic era are still made of episodes, and the episode lists give dates, viewers, AI, etc. for individual episodes, not the serials as a whole. It's the more clearer and understood title as well. -- Alex 03:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to split the article. There is zero evidence that they are different shows. Reliable sources have only ever treated it as one show, and if you want proof, you need look no further back than the most recent episode. The only people who treat it as two shows are the so called fans who just hate everything "new" regardless of what it does. Misplaced Pages should go with reliable sources, not "fan" opinion. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:ED36:2604:1F61:7BA0 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

And don't try and give me the "we're doing it for space" argument - if that's true, why split it at 1996? There have been 36 series plus specials - so forgive me, but isn't half of that 18? Or if the Simpsons really is your example, then go with 20. The simple reason is that this argument is nothing about space. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:BCC8:BF64:4C63:C165 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There is not zero evidence. Production completely shutdown after 89. 2005 is slated as Series 1, not Season 27. Same story was continued, but absolutely was different production - that not only can be reliablly sourced but as a bonus considered WP:OUTUNIVERSE version of the two choices. If it were to split, I don’t think an arbitrary halving is the best answer, whereas the major production break seems right - as well as a lot of sources do make a distinction between the classic and NuWho eras. The size argument is a little preemptive - but not irrelevant to discuss - as transclusion does have a hard limit and will eventually break the list. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do try to be civil. If you'd read my initial post, you would have found me agreeing with the fact that they are the same show. The Simpsons has run continuously, and thus, Season 20 was the place that the editors at the time decided to split, and only applies to that particular series. However, while remaining the same show (again asserting my belief in this too), Doctor Who has who very well-defined production eras, which is noted and used by the BBC themselves - perhaps the most reliable source when it comes to this programme. It therefore makes sense on where to split it. So, yes, this suggestion is based on reliable sources. -- Alex 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait - what? Calling it one series is "in universe" now? - rubbish. There's plenty "out of universe" sources - DWM had the '30 reasons to be exited by season 30' in relation to the 2008 series. Planet of the dead was called the 200th story (which by the way is your source for the numbering on the serials page) in several sources, and there were several sources for the 50th anniversary. As for different productions - there have been many different productions. Remember all that confusion in 2010 with Moffat calling his first year 'series 1' because it was the first series of his production? And I'm pretty sure there were several breaks in the 63-89 run as well. And are you really going to tell me with a straight face that splitting it won't imply something more than 'different productions'? It will give the impression - whether you agree with it or not, alex - of being something more. And that is why a split (if it really is needed) should be done at an 'arbitrary' point, so that everyone can see it is arbitrary, and not trying to convey something that doen't fit with how the Show is viewed by it's creators, and several other reliable sources. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:EDCA:ECC7:52D:9A19 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You said "There is zero evidence that they are different shows" - which is the main point I was showing that was some evidence. The majority of sources definitely discuss Classic Who and NuWho (for want of any better names) - so the split is more obvious there. Breaks in the classic series - yes there were probably some you could weed out - but there was absolutely nothing like the period between 89-2005. Production of the TV Series completely shutdown definitively. Calling it one story is fine, but in my view claiming there is no difference between Classic Who and NuWho is absolutely leaning more toward an INUNIVERSE interpretation of sources and completely naive. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• A split between classic and new is completely fine, in line with all policies. I would use the years for titles, as regardless, someone is going to find that page with an extra jump through "List of Doctor Who episodes" (which should list the two lists to help). Avoids the SIZE issue problem, and since these aren't sortable lists, there's no need to present them in one massive table. --Masem (t) 22:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree on the years - what's your opinion on the use of serials/episodes/stories in the article titles? And for anyone interested, I've started two user drafts for the split articles, they can be seen at User:AlexTheWhovian/List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1996) and User:AlexTheWhovian/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Most of the content in the first article is transcluded from the latter, as is done with The Simpsons articles, and the latter article contains the lead, overview and general references, given that the latter article will be the one viewed more often due to recentism. The two articles also contain hatnotes to each other, and the overview's season rows are linked to their respective articles. -- Alex 03:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good work, Alex. 'Episodes' does it for me as a catch-all. 'Stories' is arguably a little too general, as it might conceivably be taken to include other media such as books and comics. Do the differently coloured column headers add anything useful to the lists? The colour selection seems arbitrary rather than indicative (apologies if I'm wrong about that), although it does help to break up the page, I suppose. Sprite96 (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The colours for each season help differentiate between each other, and are picked per MOS:TV#Formatting, from their home media art. If you look at each season article, you'll find that the colours match the home media cover art in the infobox. -- Alex 13:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Practically (forgiving my ignorance) wasn't the original series broadcast as episodes, just grouped into serials? I have no problem with using "serials" for the first, but if I am correct, then "episodes" also works and keeps consistency. (That said, redirects are also cheap for all possible variations). --Masem (t) 16:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Episode on both could definitely work, as the only difference between the two would be the years, and you are right about the fact that they were broadcast as separate episodes. -- Alex 16:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The definition of "serial" is that it is still broadcast as episodes - so I don't quite understand what we are trying to point out here. However serials are quite a distinguishing feature of the classic series - I would lean towards accuracy over consistency. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that if we do split, most readers will likely start by searching either "List of Doctor Who episodes" or "List of Doctor Who serials", before being directed to the right year block. The exact term used for the original series is not as critical due to this. --Masem (t) 22:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not fussed with either of them. However, I think we should think about the readers first, and see what they're searching for the most; from Google Trends , searches with the terms "episodes" are more frequent. Google with eventually update with the correct articles after the split, and I think we should link the 2005–present article in the main article's infobox (as it provides the most recent episodes), and the hatnote at the top will provide a link to the 1963–1996 article (which will also be linked elsewhere in the main article). -- Alex 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Most users will type it into the search box at the top of the page. By the time they have typed "list of dr w" the system has already shown a short list of possible titles. So fussing over whether the users will find it with "serial", "episode" or whatever in the title is a non-issue.

I agree that the classic and revived years is the natural place for the split. You might also consider splitting the list for every generation Doctor and use the current List of Dr Who episodes article as a simple index similar to what we did for the Toyota Corolla (which covers a similar number of years and generations to Dr Who).  Stepho  talk  05:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The question is, do most readers visit this article via Google or Misplaced Pages Search, though? And I wouldn't agree splitting by each Doctor, as some don't have enough to have their own article (two, three seasons, or even one movie), and that would create thirteen separate articles - too many. Two articles should do it. -- Alex 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Google is also pretty good at looking for words of a similar nature.

Nothing wrong with short articles. Although the movie could be in the List of Dr Who episodes article instead of splitting it out. After all, its just one line.  Stepho  talk  06:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend not splitting by Doctor. Redirects to the larger lists (by era) work ust fine. --Masem (t) 06:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no basis to split by Doctor. Maybe, if this article included the summaries if the tables weren't transcluded, but they are, so having them in separate sections works perfectly fine. -- Alex 08:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Any split would be arbitrary, but 63-96 and 05-present it the most logical. Splitting it by Doctor wouldn't really make sense, since two Doctors came along during a series, so you'd have some of a series in one page, and other ones of the same series on a different page. In regards to naming, I think Doctor Who fans are the only people to make a distinction between 'episode' and 'serial' - non fans are probably going to search for 'episode', and they are probably going to be looking for the most recent ones, so I'd have 'doctor who episodes' link to the 05-present article - and then have a link to the page listing the seasons that came earlier. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest List of Doctor Who serials redirecting to List of Doctor Who episodes, then the latter becoming a disambiguation article with two links, to the split articles. This article should use 2005–present, and as I stated before, both split articles have hatnotes at the top of the page, directing to the other episodes article. -- Alex 05:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

After this discussion has gone quiet, it seems there's a pretty clear agreement to split. I suggest the use of List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1996) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), for conformity between the titles. Did anyone have any further comments on this, or should I start splitting form my userspace drafts? -- Alex 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The split definitely seems necessary, and I agree with using "episodes" rather than "serials", but I'm not sure about the use of 1996 as the cut-off point. The Paul McGann film really has no more relation to the classic series than it does to the Cardiff one, and using it would give casual readers the impression that the show continued unbroken from the 60s to the 90s, and was only off the air for nine years. It doesn't seem worth extending the "original series" umbrella over seven barren years to cover a spin-off film that isn't really an actual episode of any show and has no production link to either series. I would go with List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and include a couple of lines explaining how the 1996 film fits in the prose introductions of both articles. —Flax5 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The film has more relation to the classic series, with the production choice to include McCoy so significantly ties it that way. I agree the naming should reflect the actual 26 year tenure of the classic series - but that the film remains listed but as a special in that article. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dresken here. Yes, the years of 1963–1989 are traditionally considered the classic era, but we've already included the film with its own table here, and it's included in the series overview table (both currently and in the drafts). Even the BBC include it in their episode guide. Perhaps we can name it after the 26 years, but we definitely need to include the film. -- Alex 03:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Bumping one last time for anymore comments, before I move to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) (updated titles)... -- Alex 18:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Go for it. As the episode list has been called serials for years however, I would suggest making redirects named List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1989) and List of Doctor Who serials (2005–present) to the obvious articles. TedEdwards 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a bunch of redirects listed to create. Cheers. -- Alex 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, looks like the new series haters are going to get their way finally. They've only been trying since 2005. Here's an idea - why not split is again after 2017 to keep the female doctor haters happy as well. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:14F9:C208:D96C:7ECF (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Funny, since I love the new series... -- Alex 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I recognize that the decision has been taken and I'm late to the party (I do wish it were standard practice to put a "major restructuring discussion happening on talk" notice on articles so people could actually know these things are taking place, but that's a WP-wide issue), but I absolutely hate this change. Its main accomplishment is that I regularly have to load two tabs for tasks that previously only took one. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I already notified the WikiProject Doctor Who talk page. "I hate this change" is not a constructive argument, and "I have to load two tabs" is a personal argument that is not supported by any essays, guidelines or policies. -- Alex 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I said I recognized that the decision had already been taken, Alex. No need to be snooty about it. You won and got your stupid change; at least have some damn grace in victory, mmm? Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not consider discussions a matter of winning or losing; I take it as a personal attack that you assume that I would stoop so low. Let's take it back to the discussion now, yeah? -- Alex 19:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes sir, of course sir. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

+1 to Winter's Tulpa. I'm not part of the Great Bureaucratic Cult of Misplaced Pages, just a very heavy user of certain articles, so I won't be citing essays, guidelines, or policies, but this change makes using the article(s) more cumbersome. Changes should make pages MORE useful, not less, regardless of what your essays, guidelines, or policies may suggest to the contrary. Gwythinn (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that you personally admit is based on nothing has been duly noted. Cheers. -- Alex 17:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"...based on nothing" Based on reality, not Misplaced Pages's giant pile of imaginary red tape. I'm sure the Time Lords would be impressed by the depth of bureaucratic nonsense around here, but the Doctor would not. The fact of the matter is keeping two tabs open at all times (yes, at all times, I run a Doctor Who podcast and refer to this page -- sorry, these pages very frequently) takes more RAM than one and doubles the effort needed to find relevant information using Ctrl+F. How many stories did Rona Munro write? How many were directed by Graeme Harper? These are typical examples of questions I need the answers to. It used to be one search to find one of these answers, now it's two. Maybe that sounds trivial to you, but try doing a couple of dozen of these in a day. Pretty soon you'll find yourself wanting to find the bureaucrat in charge of the decision to split the pages and tell them to "get off my planet!". Gwythinn (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Again. Your personal opinion, based on your own "business". We don't run by your standards, never have, never will. I'll want to find the one who split it? I'll never need to find them, given that it was me who split the articles, due to the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion - there's a Misplaced Pages policy for you to read. If you want to have a civil discussion, I recommend you be civil first, else you'll find no-one willing to discuss your apparent grievances. -- Alex 21:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What consensus? the 'space' argument was defeated with the first reply, and by the end people were making no attempt to hide that they were dividing it because they considered it two different shows - despite the BBC having only ONE episode list (which was even linked at one stage) for the whole thing. I always thought[REDACTED] did stupid things because of people sticking to close to rules rather than reality, but this is the stupidest decision of all. I think WP:IAR may even apply here - because going with the reality of how the BBC have it improves wikipedia. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:C890:4C7D:C4C3:8423 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You can pretend the consensus doesn't exist all you want; doesn't change the fact that it does. Editors have constantly argued the fact that it is one show, so your belief/attack there has absolutely no basis. The BBC list it their way. We list it ours. We are not the same website. Good luck trying to apply IAR to this - you can either do something about it, or accept that your attacking, whinging and whining is doing absolutely nothing. Unless you think it is? Do you see anything coming out of your posts? Cheerio! -- Alex 19:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I see[REDACTED] being shown for what it really is. a farce controlled by editors with WP:OWN issues who attack any IP who dares argue with them, and quote rules out of context. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:A0B3:253:777:92F (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My own experience was that the list was too long to navigate comfortably and needed to be broken down. I would have preferred it to broken down by regeneration but consensus didn't go with me, so I live with it. You can't expect WP to be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of every single individual while ignoring the majority. Or you can be a child throwing a tantrum because he didn't get his own way.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You're not arguing, you're attacking. If anyone has OWN, it's you, as you are demanding your version of the article over the consensus formed. -- Alex 17:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was reached and a change was made, as is appropriate. Additional discussion is not contributing anything and additional commentary on the matter can be ignored (unless there is evidence of a new consensus). Or, in other words, let's walk away from this argument. Bondegezou (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Moves completed

 Done Articles exist at:

• List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)

Redirects created at:

• List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1996)
• List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1989)
• List of Doctor Who serials (1963–1996)
• List of Doctor Who serials (2005–present)

Disambiguation pages at:

• List of Doctor Who episodes
  • List of Doctor Who serials redirects to the above.

Templates are updated, currently unlinking unlinked usages of the old List of Doctor Who serials article. -- Alex 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Need to fix links to disambiguation page List of Doctor Who episodes. -- Alex 09:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested split - Doctor Who (1963-1989) and Doctor Who (2005-Present)

This article should be slit into two articles - one for (1963-1989) and one for (2005-Present). Talking about it as one show is "INUNIVERSE" - and it is "completely naive" to think otherwise. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:85D9:187D:F4EA:F9A0 (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article can be reworded slightly so that it explicitly talks about the franchise. DonQuixote (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing but a snarky attempt to get their way after they didn't "win" the discussion above. The article is fine as is. -- Alex 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting me out of context - even the original sentence that it comes from also contains "Calling it one story is fine". It seems to me that you are trying to disruptively prove a WP:POINT and that makes you appear spiteful for not getting you way on the "list of episodes" split. Dresken (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No thank you. Just because an egregious mistake was made with the list article doesn't mean we should propagate it to every other article that could possibly suffer the same fate. When you shoot yourself in the foot, you don't then shoot yourself in the other foot so that they'll match. Gwythinn (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please follow WP:NPA, as you yourself cited. Cheerio. -- Alex 22:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, I knew these would happen 😂 Double Plus Ungood (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523205631/http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/424 to http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/424

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A source? (Of course)

I recently completed what is turning into a semi-annual clearing of the cobwebs, burning the unsourced Continuity/Outside references content from classic series episodes (made it from about The Three Doctors all the way to Survival this time without tearing any hair out). So one source I've seen cropping up a lot lately which I can't quite work out is www.shannonsullivan.com. Whoever this is, it's not the professor who has an article by that name, I'm guessing. But who are they and is there any reason to think this source is reliable for things Who? I didn't have to decide that this time around, as each time it came up the text wasn't continuity anyway, but I've seen it elsewhere too and kind of wonder, is this just a big blog devoted mainly to Who or what? I'd like to know for the future in case it's good material that might stand there or elsewhere in the article. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wowser - mammoth effort. Hopefully we can keep on top of it better this year. "shannonsullivan" - I hadn't heard of it outside of Misplaced Pages Doctor Who articles. Seems to be a early site of Doctor Who history - articles seem to be well sourced - which is almost a novelty in todays interweb. Also claims to be the precusor to the Outpost Gallifrey. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I just don't know about the reliability of that site. They given seasons unsourced titles (presumably that's their own) and are counting the NuWho series as continuous from the original series (i.e., Season Thirty-One, etc.). Misleading to the casual reader from the start. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not completely unusual for someone to refer to the season numbers that way , and they were also producing this site back in 1995 before NuWho was even a twinkle in RTD's eye, so just because they have an opinion on something isn't the official designation that does not mean that everything else they do incorrect, especially since I've really only seen this site used as a source on classic series anyway. I also see the "unsourced titles" more like what could be chapter titles in a book - being small quirky interpretations of the seasons than something meant to be taken literally. If it were a book with creative title chapters, I don't think we would worry about it. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's one of the oldest and most well-established Doctor Who info bases on the Web. The info there comes from all over the place, including DVD extras, commentaries, published articles. It's from another era of Web design, and the presentation of the information is clearly shaped by the author's personal preferences, but I've never had reason to question the factual content. At a glance I can confirm pretty much everything on the site just from my own knowledge. And indeed you'll have trouble finding a pre-2005 Who fan on the Web who hasn't regularly referenced this site. --Aderack (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

All good to know. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Main article List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens basically a giant fanservice table now

The main purpose of the table seems to be to confirm without references that an alien species which appeared once in the classic series has (a) never been seen again (b) been mentioned, like, once, or (c) has made another appearance, in either the TV Movie (yes, it's set up as a category), the new series (all expressed in terms of Doctors, i.e. in-universe), Sarah Jane Adventures, Torchwood, K9 & Company and the Australian K9 series (hey why not throw in the The Stranger and BBV too), which has a dubious relationship to the show, and finally Class. I think we need to have a serious conversation about what to do with it, and how a list article got turned into that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

NEW LOGO!

Now that the new logo has been officially released, is it time to finally change it in the infobox? Someone could screenshot it from this video. Would be a perfect fit. For now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGiqAYL1Mw TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Not until it has premiered in the series. Realistically, per MOS:TVIMAGE, f a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. -- Alex 20:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If we went by "the one most representative of the show" then wouldn't that be the diamond logo? It seems we just use whatever the most recent one is.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The most representative is definitely the one used on all the merchandise in recent years (the one similar to the TV movie/Third Doctor logo). I'm not sure what it's called. It should be that one, or the new one. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

That's because Doctor Who-related articles have never seemed to follow MOS:TV and stuck to their own rules, regardless of it being a television series. If free media is available, we should use that per WP:NFC. -- Alex 20:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So if Doctor Who related articles follow their own rules because they "never seem to follow MOS:TV" than does it matter if the new logo is used??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying they shouldn't, I'm saying that they should be following MOS:TV and I don't understand why they're not. Sorry, I thought that was obvious. -- Alex 20:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay well then going on MOS:TV stating what you states where it states If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. specifically the part that says does not need to be updated each time it doesn't say that it can't be updated each time it just said it doesn't need to. So if it was changed it isn't breaking any part of MOS:TV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

We could ignore everything on this site, but sorry to disappoint you, but Manuals of Style and guidelines exist for a reason. We could make this whole article into a rhyming poem, and we could say it was better because nothing says we can't. If a guideline states something, then we should follow it until there's a valid and convincing reason not to. -- Alex 21:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh gosh that really disappointed me, thanks! And that's a great idea except I don't think anyone here is asking for a rhyming poem.... Anyways back on topic, it also the one most representative of the show should ideally be used and as others stated the one that's in there now is not the one that's most representative of the show. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No need to be so patronising and passive aggressive Alex...this is a legitimate discussion. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. No, it's not. So, we need to decide on which one is the most representative of the series, or provide a free content alternative. -- Alex 21:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it should the ones I suggested earlier. Either a free screenshot of the new logo announced today, or one showing the commercial logo used on the merch. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Screenshots are, by definition, non-free. The one that should be used is the one most representative of the show. Merch doesn't work here, per this, All official Doctor Who merchandise featuring the new logo will be available at selected retailers from 20th February 2018. -- Alex 22:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking the best fair use image would be this one. It exists on commons so there shouldn't be any forms to fill out and it should fit nicely in the info box. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That would definitely be acceptable, as it's free content (everything on Commons is). Other acceptable options are those also listed under c:Category:Doctor Who logos. -- Alex 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the one I suggested is better. The other ones are square-er and I don't think they would look good. So since we have the option the longer one would fit better and look neater. Any objections??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Speaking from an NFC standpoint (as all DW logos have been non-free), if you can find sourced commentary about the changed logo, that logo can be used elsewhere outside the infobox. We can't just splatter a history of logos, but if you can source each one with revelant discussion about its design choices (something I suspect can be done in the revival years), then we can do that. --Masem (t) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm surprised there's not actually a section or graphic on the page about the logo itself and it's many iterations... TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There used to be a "Logo history" section which seems to have disappeared. Someone even tried creating a List of Doctor Who logos which was quickly nominated for deletion and ended up being redirected to this page.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually basic logos as the one mentioned above can be deemed non free as they do not meet the threshold of originality. I really don't care if a section is added but for the time being as discussed above the infobox image should be swapped. TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Davey2010 for further comment. The "Free" example that is currently in place doesn't really serve to add anything other than the fact it is stylized lettering. Plenty of other articles do hold non-free images of title-cards under fair-use such as Game of Thrones, Arrow (TV series), Homeland (TV series) etc etc etc — IVORK _Discuss 03:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Per theWhovian's origional comments, once the new titlecard has aired and become the accepted face of the show, it can be updated. — IVORK _Discuss 03:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@IVORK: Did the logo that was there prior convey anything extra that the one I changed to doesn't? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does, it's more timey-wimey and therefore more representative of the show. One only needs to go through a list such as Top-rated United States television programs of 2016–17 to see that 90%+ of the infobox images are non-free claimed under fair-use. — IVORK _Discuss 04:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay well going off of that it has been discussed above that per MOS:TVIMAGE it should be the image that is most representative of the series and that the current title card that is in there is not most representative of the series? Do you agree with that. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not until it has premiered in the series. Realistically, per MOS:TVIMAGE, f a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. -- Alex 20:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Per theWhovian's origional comments, once the new titlecard has aired and become the accepted face of the show, it can be updated if people really feel the need.

The current image is the most representative, at least until the new series actually airs. — IVORK _Discuss 04:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree this is not the title card most representative of the show. And although that was said it was said If free media is available, we should use that per WP:NFC by AlexTheWhovian The most representative is definitely the one used on all the merchandise in recent years (the one similar to the TV movie/Third Doctor logo). by TheMyseteriousEditor, and as others stated the one that's in there now is not the one that's most representative of the show. by me which ALexTheWhovain agreed to by saying I agree. No, it's not. So, we need to decide on which one is the most representative of the series, or provide a free content alternative. and per MOS:TVIMAGE which most of us have agreed on it says If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. which means that it does not need to become the new image when it premieres. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just adding my 2c - Must titlecards are all non-free ... if one changes constantly then as far as I know we use the "previous" one until the new one airs, The logo TheDoctorWho added is useless as it's not the titlecard nor does it really help identify anything, I support keeping the now current titlecard until/after the first episode airs. –Davey2010 13:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I know I was guilty of saying otherwise above but AlexTheWovian pointed it out to me and I'm going to keep saying MOS:TVIMAGE says If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. and the new titlecard airing on television does NOT make it the one most representative of the show as soon as it airs. TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to agree on keeping it at one image but IMHO it wouldn't make sense having an out of date image, Unfortunately the logo doesn't really identify the image, If the logo remained the same but the background was constantly changed then sure we'd keep the first image but as the actual logo keeps being changed it makes it impossible to keep imho, I'm all for following MOS but in this case I think WP:IAR should be invoked. –Davey2010 14:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Being that a new Doctor comes about every 2-3 years in the revived series, I'd say that's long enough to take over as the face. If it was year to year, then it'd be more of an arguement. So yes, as you pointed out, the quote is that it does not need to be updated... but it still can be, per WP:IAR and the fact there's so many Whovian edittors that frequent this article. My bottom line being per Davey2010 that the image you selected is useless as it's not the titlecard nor does it really help identify anything. — IVORK _Discuss 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@IVORK: Per theWhovian's origional comments, once the new titlecard has aired and become the accepted face of the show, it can be updated No, this is incorrect. Again, per MOS:TVIMAGE, f a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. When the new title card comes to be when the eleventh series premieres, it will have been displayed in one episode, and therefore is not representative of the show for the past 54 years.

Furthermore: Plenty of other articles do hold non-free images of title-cards under fair-use such as Game of Thrones, Arrow (TV series), Homeland (TV series) etc etc etc These title cards are used because there are no free alternatives. Per WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1, if free alternatives do exist, then they must be used over any non-free example - this is the case for Doctor Who. That trumps IAR, in my opinion, unless you have a solid claim that it does not. About is useless as it's not the titlecard nor does it really help identify anything, it does not need to be the title card, but it does identify the image visually.

If you would like, I can take it to an RFC or the talk page of WP:NFCC, which is (as it states) a "Misplaced Pages policy with legal considerations". -- Alex 06:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No this isn't the case for Doctor Who, The "free" alternative is not a suitable option because that intertitle is no longer used and it doesn't help at all in identifying the programme (whereas a titlecard would), No need to start an RFC - Consensus here is quite clear - Use a new titlecard once it airs. –Davey2010 13:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion is still ongoing, so regardless of your attempts to steer the conversation, a consensus has not yet been formed. It is irrelevant if the intertitle is currently used or not, only if it represents the show in any way, and if a free alternative exists, then it must be used over any non-free examples. I'd be happy to open an RFC to gain the view of the wider community. -- Alex 13:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is definitely no consensus here. As for the RFC I'm beginning to feel like that may be necessary. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Free versions should only be used if that free version is being used, I have no objections to it being adding to the article however it should not be in the infobox, I second the RFC as I welcome all editors to comment on this. –Davey2010 18:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur with AlexTheWhovian. Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw my voice in this and state that, I am for retaining the current Title Logo card in the infobox, until we've had at least a few episodes of the 11th series that have featured the new logo that was revealed this month. There's no point putting up the new logo, because a) It's premature to do so; and b) It's unwise to do so against Misplaced Pages's policy. (I could also state that the logo might change before the series is unveiled, or that it's already in use on the show's official Youtube channel, but neither count on this to be honest.) In any case, we need to really consider allowing the new logo to set itself in gradually, before we consider changing the image in the infobox to it. Pure, common sense, in Misplaced Pages terms. GUtt01 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I am gonna state that, although I added in my voice here, this really needs no further discussion at all. I think we can all agree here of the following:

* The new logo is representive of the show - the programme's official website confirms this to be the case per this -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/doctorwho/entries/9333c785-d772-4eb0-8ea3-e69c53186271

* The logo used for the 8th - 10th series should remain on the article's infobox, until the 11th series has begun its broadcast. The overall consensus is practically leaning towards this.

In short, let's end the matter here and now. However, I will ask that someone finds a version of the logo that can be used on Misplaced Pages that conforms to policies on free/non-free images (preferably the former). GUtt01 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, the discussion is still ongoing, so no consensus has yet been formed. That means, nobody gets to say "let's end this discussion now". The new logo will not be representative of the show, it will be representative of the new series. Using your logic, the 2014-17 title card would therefore have to still be representative of the show. The issue of policies on free/non-free images has already been addressed. -- Alex 02:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A request to alter the current image to reflect the revised Doctor Who logo. 81.102.210.193 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Also join primary discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#NEW LOGO! TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox image

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What image should be used for the infobox of the Doctor Who main article?

1. The currently-displayed title card as shown between the eighth to tenth series, File:Doctor Who - Current Titlecard.png
2. The new title card to be introduced in the eleventh series, File:Doctor Who Logo 2018.jpg
3. A free-media title card, several of which are already on Commons, c:Category:Doctor Who logos; a previously-suggested title card from this category is c:File:Doctor Who.svg

Guidelines and policies that have been raised in the previous discussion at § NEW LOGO! in relation to this discussion are MOS:TVIMAGE, WP:NFC, WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1. -- Alex 02:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 using one of the free title card from commons listed at c:Category:Doctor Who logos per WP:FREER; Strong Support for using the one I suggested. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support #2 In MOS:TVIMAGE, there is no indication that a non-free image can be used - so long as it conforms to what it states about the intertitle shot of the show in it's main article, and it is in use, there is nothing wrong in using it. GUtt01 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As quoted in the discussion above (this is for the benefit of uninvolved editors coming to this RfC), MOS:TVIMAGE states If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used - that is the case for #2. -- Alex 08:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

True as may be, but I think that the choices made above aren't exactly the right ones. I read your response while at work on my phone, and... I had to think on this for today, and have since now, come up with something that I believe may be debatable, yet also hold some truth to it. I think the choices that were put forward by you, may have been wrong. In my opinion, they should have really been made out as these to your question:

#1. A free-media title card that is representative of the show.

#2. A non-free title card of the original logo of the show, when it was first broadcast.

#3. The standard arrangement used over the years - the changing of the logo to the one used by the show officially for a new series and its website.

Now for each, I would state that they each have their pros and cons:

* Option 1 would require a good deal of searching for one that would be suitable, and this could be open to interpretation by editors to also include any design of the logo made by fans that they have given legal right to be freely used. However, it would be reasonable, and would certainly work well with the site's policies.

* Option 2 would certainly do well in conforming to MOS:TVIMAGE, in terms of its guidelines to what could be considered a suitable image that is non-free. But of course, as I stated just then, the Manual of Styles are more guidelines - they are aimed at demonstrating a preferable way of presenting information in articles, particularly various forms of media and fictional work.

* Option 3 would be more agreeable with editors, because its simple enough to do and wouldn't be causing problems, yet with this recent discussion over the recent logo to be brought into use for the program, it raises questions on if it would be appropriate to do so and if there are other articles on TV programmes which have featured logos/title cards that have changed for new series.

In short, of these three options I have put forward, I believe Option 2 would be most appropriate. Why? - The simple answer is that it should really be focused on the original logo of the show that was used. Any subsequently new logos that were made could be marked out in the article in separate image files, denoting the period of their use, and if agreed on, could also be included in the article of the series that they first appeared in. I would be more for that, in all honesty, than continual changes in logos/title cards in this article. GUtt01 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1 up to October, Support #2 after October - As I said above none of the logos at Commons are appropriate as they're not used anymore so it seems silly to use an out of date logo in the infobox .... Also using an out of date logo means newbies are always going to try and replace it with a titlecard ..., Titlecards are used everywhere and are used to help our readers understand the topic, As stated above regardless of what MOS:TVIMAGE says we should invoke WP:IAR and follow common consensus by using a titlecard. –Davey2010 14:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: WP:AIR actually goes to the WikiProject for Aircraft. Could you change it please, to go to the policy you were directing us to? GUtt01 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I clearly meant WP:IAR, Ever heard of typos?..... –Davey2010 16:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, mate, but I just wanted to let you know that you made one. GUtt01 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're not used anymore. If they are representative of the show, then it can be used. The reason for WP:IAR seems based purely on personal preference and nothing solid. (For reference, a discussion on the updates to MOS:TVIMAGE can be seen at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE image.) Also using an out of date logo means newbies are always going to try and replace it with a titlecard - is this not exactly what you are doing, or requesting? This is what hidden notes are for, as we currently have one and there haven't been any changes since. Titlecards are used everywhere and are used to help our readers understand the topic Technically, a title card doesn't help understand anything, it's there to represent the show. What does the current blue logo help readers to understand? That the series is Doctor Who? Yes - but any logo can do this. -- Alex 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 I just realized I never !voted on this, I just made the introduction. As I've already noted, free media must be used over non-free media if it is available per WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1 (the latter of which is a legal policy), and this is the case here. WP:IAR cannot ignore that. When I support #3, I'm open to any of the files listed in that category, particularly either the second (as it is a form of the original logo for the series) or the sixth (as suggested by TheDoctorWho). -- Alex 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1/#2 Don't really care which. With regard to #3, I'm neutral with regard to the logos that have been used on the show in the 60s i.e. the first 5 on the commons link above, but I strongly oppose using Doctor Who.svg and User DW.png, as they have never been used on the show, so I do not believe they are representative of the show in any regard. Also on #3, if you change the logo to one of those, I feel that there may be editors who will just revert the page back to the previous logo, making the page unstable. TedEdwards 18:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

c:File:Doctor Who.svg has never been used? Take a look at that file, then take a look at the current title card... I feel that there may be editors who will just revert the page back to the previous logo, making the page unstable. That's what WP:CONSENSUS, hidden notes, and page protection are for. -- Alex 23:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1 up to October, Support #2 after October per above discussions. Purely stylized text serves to add nothing to the article. It doesn't identify anything relevant. Surely there is a line between being more important to be free and actually useful / relevant / an improvement to the article. Otherwise pretty much all shows could just use the title text as displayed in the show with the background stripped away, but they don't. — IVORK _Discuss 23:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

They could, yes, but only if the title card text was available as basic geometric shapes without any styling, but for most shows, this is not available. You !vote supports using the non-free media, but what about an explanation for supporting the change in October? -- Alex 00:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Doctor Who articles
• Top-importance Doctor Who articles
• B-Class BBC articles
• High-importance BBC articles
• WikiProject BBC articles
• B-Class television articles
• High-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• B-Class England-related articles
• Top-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• B-Class science fiction articles
• High-importance science fiction articles
• WikiProject Science Fiction articles
• B-Class media franchise articles
• Top-importance media franchise articles
• WikiProject Media franchises articles
• B-Class Cardiff articles
• Mid-importance Cardiff articles
• WikiProject Cardiff articles
• B-Class Wales articles
• Low-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Selected anniversaries (November 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (November 2015)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment