Talk:Doctor Who fandom: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 18:00, 13 February 2024

Doctor Who fandom was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Doctor Who Mid‑importance

	Doctor Who portal 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 Wikipedia. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

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.

Cardiff Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media franchises Low‑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 Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: British Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[One of These Days (instrumental)#Music video/concert visuals|''Doctor Who''-related music video]] The anchor (#Music video/concert visuals) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Trock

Trock is a viable genre, i own an album by Chameleon Circuit. DFTBA has 18 artists releasing under its name. Also the group The Timelords released a single Doctorin' the Tardis which reached number 1 in the UK charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnedfrenchman (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Ellison is definately a fan...

Here I quote him, the highly critical science-fictioneer:

Whilst on the lecture platform of the World Science Fiction Convention in 1979...

"Star Wars is adolescent nonsense; Close Encounters is obscurantist drivel; Star Trek can turn your brains to puree of bat guano; and the greatest science fiction series of all time is Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one or all in a bunch to back it up!" DrWho42 10:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ellison also wrote the introduction to Pinnacle's US imprints of the Target novelisations, so he should definitely join the list. Martpol 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.. That's whereto I got my quote. (= Anyways, he admits to hating television and alot of its "science-fiction" save for this fine exception in the space-time wash.DrWho42 13:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't be subsequently claimed not to have actually written that introduction? Angmering 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yea. This Ellison guy is awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.122.147 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than...

Rather than the Save Doctor Who campaign sticker, shouldn't it be more akin to something like a Whovian dressed in fan-attire or an image of a Doctor Who convention? DrWho42 07:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As "fan attire", IMHO, is jeans and t-shirt, I would prefer the latter ;-) A queue of fans waiting to get an autograph would be suitable if anyone has such a photo. —Wh o uk (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I'm image-inept, I've got some pictures from the last Gallifrey convention. I'll see if there's anything suitable and try to upload it. —Josiah Rowe (talk •

contribs) 16:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything suitable? DrWho42 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I went away on wikibreak and forgot about this. I've just had a look through my iPhoto collection, and although most of my photos aren't very good there are a few that might suit. I've got one of a fan in a rather good Tom Baker costume, one of Noel Clarke, Nick Briggs, Rob Shearman, Mark Gatiss and Steve Moffat at an autograph table, and one of all the Gallifrey 2006 attendees on the stage with the TARDIS and a rather tatty-looking Dalek. None are really great, but I'll upload these three and see if anyone thinks one of them is suitable. (I also have a decent-ish picture of me with the TARDIS, but that would be extremely self-indulgent.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK: the photos are up at Image:4thDoccostume.jpg, Image:GallifreyAutographs.jpg and Image:Gallifrey2006.jpg. If any of them look good to anyone, feel free to put them on the page. If not, I won't be hurt. (The Fourth Doctor costume one could probably be cropped a bit, as well; I left it as-is because of the convention schedule on the wall, but we probably don't need the guy in the background.) Anyway, there they are. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the autograph session because it shows off fans as opposed to just one fan or just the guests. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll put that one on the page then — it can at least serve as a placeholder until we get something better. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Martin

[1] Hopefully, now that the relevant guideline has been pointed out, this silliness will stop.--Sean Black ^(talk) 11:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As anyone can submit an item to be included in IMDb's Trivia sections, I don't think it could be listed as a reliable source. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I couldn't find anything in relation betwixt either Steve Martin and Doctor Who I highly doubt the validity thereof.. There should be sources cited as they do with the List of notable Star Trek fans. DrWho42 14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Martin is so a fan of Doctor Who. He has confessed it and it's on his website. He very rarely posts messages on his websites but he does whenever he's filming a movie to let his fans know how he's doing, but he quickly takes them down after a couple of months. Anyway when the new series was about to debut Steve Martin stated that when it comes to the debut "he was the most excited man in Hollywood". He's also posted a message that he only did Cheaper By The Dozen because as he plays Tom Baker he's so close to fulfilling the goal of so many Whovians, to play The Doctor. He also posted a message, when he was doing "Looney Tunes: Back In Action" that he insisted in having Daleks in the scene with all those aliens attacking Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny.

It's not enough that you saw it. Other people must be able to verify it as well. Without a source other people can check it still fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, well, there's always Archive.org if the website Steve Martin.com no longer has the information thereon. Simply type in the site on Archive.org, and that certainly should send you places.DrWho42 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onus of providing the cite is on him, though. Let him find it. --khaosworks (talk •

contribs) 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh no, you're the one that has a problem with imdb.com, you find it"

That's not how it works in the real world. If you add it, you provide the cite. If you can't, it goes out. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"And I have, imdb.com, and you seem to have a problem with it"

Which I've already explained the problem - it's not reliable. And not just me; other people seem to agree it's not reliable. So it's on you to find something else. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyone can put a bit of trivia up on imdb.com but they have it get it approved by the webmasters or mistresses first. And it takes a maximum of 28 days, and anytime someone submits something for imdb.com it states if it's not up by 28 days it means it's unnotable or THEY DIDN'T FIND PROOF that the statement is true. They RESEARCH --DaffyDuck619 (contribs)

That didn't stop them from being scammed into thinking Davros was going to show up in The Parting of the Ways, so I don't think much of their fact-checking skills when it comes to Doctor Who. If Steve Martin is such a huge Doctor Who fan, surely it must have been mentioned elsewhere? Even reporters are supposed to look for two sources before printing a fact. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I submitted a comment/query to the IMDb.--Sean Black ^(talk) 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything insofar arrived, Sean? DrWho42 00:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years after this conversation, Steve Martin's Twitter definitively confirms he's "never seen Dr. Who". I've removed his name from the list accordingly.

Male/female ratio

From the episode Rose...

# Clive's wife Caroline (who is not mentioned by name on screen) shows surprise that a "she" would read a website about the Doctor. This is a sly aside, noting the widely-held misconception that there are extremely few female Doctor Who fans. (However, statistics soon revealed that the male/female ratio for Doctor Who's viewing audience is roughly 1:1.^{[citation needed]})

Could anyone verify that supposed "fact"? DrWho42 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the audience is split 50:50, that's not the same as evidence that fandom is split in the same proportion... —Wh o uk (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the fandom should be about 50/50 as well. So many girl fans out there want to touch #10 inappropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.122.147 (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Doctor fangirls did not exist at the time Rose aired, or if they did they had remarkable foresight ;) 121.75.131.153 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whobies

Whobies is a term I came up with to describe new fans of the show. Is that worthy of mention in the article? - John R. Sellers 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I got that term from another member of the Ex Isle Forums in this thread..."Whobie-Noobie". I just shortened it. - John R. Sellers 02:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this sniglet is notable enough unfortunately..

Oh well. Worth a shot. -- John R. Sellers 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do remember that a new fan to Battlestar Galactica is generally called a "nugget", but that's an entirely different reality altogether.. (BSG fans are called Galacticans though..)

I believe this* guide to be rather helpful for the new fans nevertheless...

DrWho42 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*The Beginner's Guide to Doctor Who

Jack Nicholson and Prince Charles

In 1989 when Doctor Who was going off the air, Steve Martin went on an Australian variety show called "Hey! Hey! It's Saturday" and sung a song like Adam Sandler's Hannukah song, only with celebrity Whovians instead of celebrity Jews. Two of those names he listed was Prince Charles and Jack Nicholson.

That kinda sounds like a conspiracy theory if it wasn't about Doctor Who.... DrWho42 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Whovians we need to work together

Yesterday I tried starting a new category, Celebrity Whovians. However they were constantly deleted as most of them were not properly cited or irrelevant (hey if celebrity vegeratians is relevent enough for a category then so is celebrity whovians). So Whovians, we need to work together to make this category as big as the LGBT section, so those who contributed to the celebrity section I need to know the links (well I don't need to know those who keep deleting the section need to know) to where it states they are Whovians. Your fellow Whovian DaffyDuck619

All unreferenced additions are subject to removal, as per Wikipedia policies on Original Research, Reliable sources and Verifiability. CovenantD 00:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Daffy is going to say I'm biased, but for what it's worth, a large number of those that he's bunged into the Celebrity Whovians category, like Steve Martin, Robin Williams, Jack Nicholson, Johnny Depp, etc. are of dubious verifiability at best. Doctor Who has been around for a long time, and just because someone says he likes the series doesn't automatically make him a fan. People like Steven Moffat, Mark Gattis, David Walliams, though, are unequivocally in the fan category because they have actually written for the series or about the series, and believe me, Moffat can uber-geek about Who with the best of them. So, no - if Daffy wants to assert these things, he needs to provide verifiable and reliable sources. --01:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Something Daffy has problems with, to judge by many of the article talk pages and hir own. CovenantD 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now we need to work together to keep the category alive, if celebrities being vegeratians is notable for a category (what celebrities like to eat), if celebrities being Star Trek fans is notable enough for a category, then so is the category of celebrities being Doctor Who fans.

Plus you've all seen David Walliams love for Doctor Who, to him being a Whovian is like being a Jew, a Catholic, a Budhist, or following a religion and Matt Lucas has described it ALMOST being like that (he didn't want to disgrace his heritage by saying it is) Now I don't know how to vote but I'm pretty sure you do, so come on, help keep this category alive. Your fellow Whovian DaffyDuck619

We should insert as many or more citations and references as List of notable Star Trek fans does. DrWho42 05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that finding citations is the key. I noticed the mention of the wrestler Jericho on the Outpost Gallifrey News Page (apparently he mentioned his fondness for the series in a recent installment of I Love the '70s), and have added him to the list with that citation. I don't have the time to find citations for everybody, but it's not an impossible task: for example, David Beckham could be cited with the news item from last year about Posh buying him The Shooting Scripts as a Christmas present. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity fans

I have reservations as to whether we should even bother noting celebrity fans at all. Many famous people are fans of various shows: why is this particularly notable in a general sense? Shouldn't this article really be about Doctor Who fandom rather than celebrity fans? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd have to agree with you (mostly). This should play emphasis on fandom in general (fan clubs, conventions, the whole general sort of fan-stuff) rather on particular people who happen to be fans (or simply those of good mind enough to like the show). I'd say secede the section off into a different article as there's something similar for Star Trek (actually, it's a list). DrWho42 05:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this page is all about fans of Doctor Who if we list these celebrities we're listing fans of Doctor Who.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs) 00:06, August 29, 2006 (UTC)

But the question is whether we should be listing fans of Doctor Who here at all. I agree with DoctorWho42, if this material is to be kept at all it should be spun off into another article (List of notable Doctor Who fans); however, I'm of two minds about whether such an article would be worth having or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it could be argued that a list of celebrity fans gives the reader an idea of the size & clout of worldwide fandom.

Contribution

From spscriptorium.com "Dr. Who has two episodes people could be reminded of. The first has to do with the Daleks (Gelgameks), the second with the planet of spiders (the Queen Spider)." That's the link I provided yet khasworks stated he couldn't find it, well there it is in black and white, plain as day, clear as crystal. Proof that not only Matt Parker's and Trey Stone's work was influenced by Doctor Who, proof that they are Whovians BUT khasworks does not want me contributing. Well Khaosworks I've got news for you, there I can contribute and if you don't like it piss off —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DaffyDuck619 (talk • contribs) 01:12, August 27, 2006 (UTC)

Daffy, I don't think it's ever been about you. It's about the edits which you are providing without reliable sources. You need to be specific when you link to a page: for example, when you gave http://www.spscriptorium.com/ScriptGuideIndex.htm as a citation, that was not helpful because that link goes to the front page of the site. People can't be expected to search through transcripts of every South Park episode. And your comment above isn't helpful either, because it doesn't let us know which episode or page you're quoting from. It's in black and white, but nobody except you knows exactly where it's from. It's just not good enough.

Also, if you're providing a link to back up a claim that an individual is a Doctor Who fan, please be sure that it actually says that. You linked to http://www.physics.mun.ca/%7Esps/serials/tvm.html as supporting the notion that Steven Spielberg wanted to direct the TV movie, or another Doctor Who movie. The page has moved to here, and although it says that Spielberg was involved in vetoing John Leekley's script, it doesn't say anything about Spielberg wanting to direct.

Finally, we've been over why IMDb is not a reliable source for trivia of this kind. IMDb's staff check submissions of credits, but the trivia and biography sections are frequently error-laden, and not acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes.

Khaosworks is enforcing Wikipedia policies. He is not editing in opposition to you — if you can provide specific, reliable sources for the information you want to add, it will be retained. However, if you continue to add the same information with erroneous, unspecified links or no links at all, it will be removed. Also, please remember Wikipedia's policies about civility (good) and personal attacks (bad). Come on, it's not that difficult. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stone and Trey Parker are fans

Reading what khasworks said about what makes someone a fan of the show, it's not when they say they like it or when they say good things about it or when they say they're a fan of it, it's when they write for or about the series. So the South Park boys have written about Doctor Who, they wrote about the serial the Planet of the Spiders in the episode Red Hot Catholic Love (check out Red Hot Catholic Love section in spscriptorium.com), with the giant queen spider and all. Plus in one episode, I forgot which one it was, there was a Doctor in the show named "Who". Plus in most episodes that contained a nerd in it, there was a reference to the show. So there for Matt Stone and Trey Parker have written about Doctor Who and khaosworks justifies them as a fan DaffyDuck619

No, that's not my criteria at all. In any case, you're misinterpreting what I say when I say writing "about the series"; I mean in a non-fictional sense. Moffat, et al. have all gone on record as saying the are fans, and have written articles, etc. about Who as well. You're drawing a conclusion that Ston and Parker are fans because of a similarity in aliens - that's the original research. Cite us something that the reference was intended and was because they are fans of the show, not the show itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Online: Permissible Link or not?

Can I thank the person (whose name I can't remember at the moment) for the message he sent re the posting of the link to Doctor Who Online but could I ask if he could translate what he said into English (i.e what is the problem with the listing?) Harry Hayfield 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who left the message on your user talk page, but I hope I can explain in English — the issue is that Wikipedia has a guideline for external links, and one of the things that it discourages is links to fan sites. The article was actually already in violation of that guideline by linking to DWIN, Outpost Gallifrey and the like, so I've replaced those with a link to the Web Guide to Doctor Who, as the most comprehensive example of a Doctor Who web directory (see WP:EL#Links to be considered, #2). Presumably, readers interested in finding Doctor Who fan sites can go to the Web Guide and from there find links to Doctor Who Online or any other fan site. I hope that makes sense to you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed thanks for that Harry Hayfield 03:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts...

Podcasts are increasingly becoming used to voice fans opinions on the show, for example Doctor Who: Podshock, Doctor Who: DWO Whocast and Doctor Who: Tin Dog Podcast, I feel as this is a large part of Doctor Who fandom and it should be mentioned on the page. Anybody else?--Wiggstar69 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube fans

I've deleted the following large section on individual fans with fan films on YouTube:

Many people now place their homemade Doctor Who videos on the video sharing site, Youtube

Youtube is full of Doctor Who fan films, some of the most notable film makers are;

Tony Coburn (timelordfromhell)

Tony Coburn has been making films since 2004, and was featured in the first episode of Totally Doctor Who alongside Thomas Rees Kaye for their fan films. In 2007, Coburn cancelled his original account (gallifreyrebel) after an argument with 2 fellow users. But soon after that he returned. He is currently in College and is filming his first full series. He has 2 episodes from his Series online, and his 2007 Christmas Special was titled "Christmas Collison".

Thomas Rees Kaye (crevasse)

Thomas Rees Kaye has also been making films since 2004, many of them starring himself alongside Tony Coburn and others such as Sebastian Bird. He rarely uploads but has over 200 suscribers and many more viewers. His latest episode got an average rating of 5 stars and 1 honour.

Sebastian Bird (DaleksFearMe)

Sebastian Bird has been making films since 2006. Most notable for his Doctor Who Spoofs "Who's Doctor Who" and "Doctor Bond". Bird has his own series going which is scoring high ratings. His Doctor made his debut in "House of Horror".

B.S.O. Green (Mysteriousinternaut):

The series began in 2006, spawning from a one off animated Time War film. He has made Two series, and plans to run for many more years. Next year will see the addition of three specials, instead of a series, due to the busy lifestyle of its creator, B.S.O Green. He's had a range of companions, featuring K9 (his most recent companion) and a timelord who's soul has been transported into a machine called Marnal.

Jamie Carroll (Carroll 13):

With a very popular first series, Caroll 13 has managed to group together a group of actors (something that many film makers struggle with, due to difficult filming shedules) and has two companions (both male) called Nip and Strider. Work is currently undergoing on a Christmas Special.

Emma (Dogtor who):

This youtube member has re-created different scenes from the popular science fiction series "Doctor Who", replacing the actors with animated Dogs. It's a very popular series, with such moments as the 9th-10th Doctor regeneration being re-created to give her thoasands of viewers.

Tom J.C (NAFALL):

NAFALL doesn't have a full fan film series, but he creates his own animated trailers/short episodes which have gained over 50,000 viewers. He has written a Series 2 episode for Carroll 13, which is due to be released next year, and has worked with Mysteriousinternaut on the episode 'Apollo 13', coming up with some of the main elements for the story. His Doctor Who animations are the most viewed on his channel.

Joshua Williams (Cyberman2k6)

Joshua Williams has been making films since January 2007 with his Doctor Who themed spoof "At Home with the Boss". Various plans for a series fell through due to various computer problems but filming is due to begin in March 2008 on his first full series. Although Williams has made 3 stories, these are as follows: Snowballs which is a 3 minute thing to make use of Snow and has no real plot, Alien Presence which introduces his Doctor properly and Genetic Rift which has since been removed from Youtube.

Jackson Boyd (TheDoctorJackson)

Jackson Boyd is apart of Boyd Productions, a filming production org. made by him in early 2008. With permanent members David Hedrick (Zman123458) and Brandon Furr (TimeLordBrandon). And other guests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.159.119 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not a good idea to list individual fans on this page, unless their creations have been noted in some reliable source. A reliable source could include a newspaper or Doctor Who Magazine — but since anybody can put a video up on YouTube, the mere fact that someone has a YouTube video isn't itself notable. A case might be made for Tony Coburn, since he was featured on Totally Doctor Who, but I don't think the others meet the notability standard. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of YouTube contributors also invites listcruft. Most of the edits to re-add these names over recent weeks have been by IP addresses (non-registered Wikipedia members), who might well be the individuals themselves. On a side issue, is the Celebrity Fans section already in danger of looking like listcruft? Could it be trimmed to highlight the greater celebrities only? Difficult, but maybe worthwhile. --The Missing Hour (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Doctor Who Web Guide

The link to the Doctor Who Web Guide doesn't work anymore.

--CGW (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Brian Olsen (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon Circuit

Chamelion circuit is a viable band and deservse a mention on this page --Pireninjacolass (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may well be a real band, but unfortunately there don't exist enough reliable, third-party sources for them to be notable enough to warrant including them in this article. In the past, mentions of them have been poorly-sourced or not sourced at all, and have such been removed. Once notability has been established, it may be appropriate to add them. 92.2.69.120 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I had the same thought about CC while reading this article. Obviously some time has passed since this comment was made, so do enough good sources exist today? There is the official website of the band's founder: http://charliemcdonnell.com/music/ and sites such as Last.fm listing their songs and such. Surely this is enough to at least prove their existence? NexusBoy (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Websites created by people in (or close to) the band don't really count, as they are self-published sources – this means that they are not third-party. Last.fm is third-party, but it's not reliable because anyone can edit it or add music to it. The band that I'm in has a Last.fm page, but that doesn't mean that we should be added to Wikipedia. So, in short, I'm afraid that those two sources do not currently prove CC's notability. 92.21.195.122 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their albums are on Amazon and iTunes and YouTube, and these are third party and the first two at least are not editable by anyone... NexusBoy (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being on sale through iTunes and Amazon doesn't necessarily make a band notable - a group can technically pay for themselves to have their music available through those particular channels. There are a lot of unsigned bands with singles for sale on iTunes, but that doesn't mean that they should all get their own Wikipedia articles. As you've said, anyone can upload a video to YouTube, and that doesn't necessarily make the band notable either. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ferguson/Chris Hardwick

These two are definitely fans. Craig frequently mentions it on the Late Late Show and Chris on his podcast (Nerdist). Recently, Craig had a Doctor Who-themed show that featured a Dalek and Matt Smith as a guest. A video has leaked online of a dance that couldn't play on air because they couldn't get the rights to the DW theme song. USA Today Youtube video of the dance EditingW (talk) 08:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'A dance that couldn't play on air'. Are you talking about the 'lost Dr. Who cold open'? Vincinel (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources covering the fandom itself, lacks notability

Not one source in the article is a secondary source that covers the topic of the article itself, the Doctor Who fandom. This fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and may put the article up for speedy deletion if not corrected. IsaacAA (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck wih that. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion for article deletion was snowballed, yet no one is actively trying to show the notability of the Doctor Who fandom. IsaacAA (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity fans?

Is this section necessary? What the hell is a "notable" fan? What is the purpose other than a dubious fannish desire for external validation of one's own fannish behaviour (Oooh, Ten watched when a nipper--squeee!). Bloody embarrassing. Moreover, anything here which is unsourced is likely a WP:BLP violation. It's like "outing" people. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Doctor Who fandom. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who TARDISposting and Scongo

This is likely to be a hotly contested subject but I wondered if there should be a section added for the Facebook group Doctor Who TARDISposting or, in particular, the internet meme Scongo. My reasoning for this, initially, is that the group has probably become the most notorious fan network for Doctor Who in generations (I dont have any sources to prove this, but hey ho it is the talk page). Scongo is actually set to be featured in the Doctor Who: Worlds Apart Online Trading Card game and there are of course numerous videos circulating of previous incarnations exclaiming "Scongo is the best villain" or something to that effect.

I know this is going to be a contentious subject because certain individuals will reject the sentiment that a shitposting group should deserve any kind of notoriety in the first place, however, I think it's worth noting that Doctor Who only exists because of the persistence of its fanbase, meaning Scongo is as important to the franchise's history as Doctor in Distress, those weird VHS knockoffs Colin Baker was involved in, or various projects by Nicholas Briggs, Mark Gatiss et al. in the 1990s.

Its also worth arguing that, as the game has not yet been released, these two things are yet to be solidified in the franchise's history yet.

Ask most fans about Scongo and they will not know what you are talking about and TARDISposting is only notorious with a very small section of DW fandom. I have been a fan of DW, and active in the fandom, and I had no heard of either until I stumbled upon them by chance. I have, however, noticed that members of that group are trying hard to make themselves, and this Scongo "joke", "a thing" and for all I know you could be one of them. "Scongo" is not at all noteworthy and should not be included in the article; the fact it is an unfunny, tired joke with nothing interesting behind it is, of course, irrelevant and just my opinin. _ The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.147.111 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]