Talk:Doctor Who

Lock

I think it would be a good idea to lock this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.246.130 (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is free to raise a request at Requests for page protection. At the moment the level of sustained vandalism required does not appear bad enough for protection but that's just my opinion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

why lock a discussion page? That seems somewhat backward217.44.188.83 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That discussion from six months ago was not about the talk page.Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

-- Why would you lock a discussion ??? Why does the page on Doctor who not include details of where he got the name ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.68.63 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because no one knows what the details are. DonQuixote (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Second sentence of article

I'm finding the second sentence too unreadable for the beginning of the summary. It currenty reads (together with the sentences either side):

Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. 'The programme depicts the adventures of a mysterious and eccentric alien, a Time Lord known as the Doctor, who travels through time and space in his time machine, the TARDIS (an acronym for Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space), which normally appears from the exterior to be a blue 1950s British police box.' With his companions, he explores time and space, faces a variety of foes and saves civilisations, helping people and righting wrongs.

Back when it was a featured article the opening line was:

Doctor Who is a British science fiction television series, produced by the BBC and concerning the adventures of a mysterious time travelling adventurer known only as "The Doctor".

I find that much more readable and useful way into a very detailed article. The detail of being a Time Lord or police box is not so important that it need detract from readability. How about stripping it right back to something along the lines of:

Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. The programme depicts the adventures of a mysterious time travelling alien known only as the Doctor. With his companions, he explores time and space, faces a variety of foes and saves civilisations, helping people and righting wrongs.

The other detail is still further down in the article. PoisonedPigeon (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That second sentence is one of the classic Wikipedia run-on sentences, and has always bugged me as well. I do think the detail of the TARDIS could remain in the paragraph, but that second sentence could be broken into a three, or reframed as you suggest. Drmargi (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Revelations about the Doctor section

With regard to the statement about the Doctor as half-human, I've now rolled back Jack Sebastian's changes to the prior version. He had removed a note about the controversy over the Eight Doctor statement; this revert should not be taken as a statement against his concerns. However, as we have differing opinions on the value of the statement, I have self-reverted my own attempts at a rewrite in favour of restoring the previous version so as to facilitate discussion here. Note that I'm not looking to debate the question of whether or not the character is half-human, half-turtle, or half-anything; instead, I think that the section here should simply mention the lack of consensus as to the accuracy of the statement, per the expanded text in the main article about the character. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The original reason i removed the statement is because the link - which you have reinstated - says nothing about fan controversy or whatever. As far as I have seen here, no one has offered reliably-sourced statements to that effect. I have no horse in this race, and don't care if The Doctor is half-human or not; I do care if the statement is uncited or fancruft. As there is no solid, reliable source noting a lack of fan consensus (and let's face it, calling something a controversy when all it appears to be is a few chuckleheads on a forum board flaming each other), the statement doesn't belong. I think there is plenty of continuity error in the series; it has been on tv since before most of us were born. Of course there are going to be continuity issues. We don't need to highlight every single one that the fan community feels is earthshaking.

While this discussion is ongoing, I'm going to - again - remove the dead link and the information supposedly connected to it. When we have decided what to do, then we can take action to insert something in there. As it is, no reliable citation means no inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: the link appears to not actually be dead. The pertinent information states:

Q: Is the Doctor half-Human?

A: Yes, on his mum's side. It was established in the Doctor Who TV Movie; however purists tend to disregard this.

While the link's apparent reinstatement appears to be good, the statement above doesn't imply a controversy. The language that was initially removed said:

• "Given that there have been no previous references to this information during the original or revived television series, the BBC's "Plot and Continuity" FAQ notes that "(fan) purists tend to disregard this.".

and

• "a statement that led to "controversy amongst fans" (wikilinked to the section on Continuity Curiosities) as to its accuracy."

This isn't controversy; its a few old school fans choosing to stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly in the face of the show laying down the law, so to speak. The user originally adding this (and I doubt it was CKatz) likely massaged the facts a little bit to make it seem like more of an issue than it is. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that I have self-reverted out my changes in favour of the long-standing text, and (per WP:BRD) you need to do so as well. No harm will come of leaving the text in while we discuss this, whereas simply removing it puts the section in contradiction of the main article. The original text was simply:

"Given that there have been no previous references to this information during the original or revived television series, the BBC's "Plot and Continuity" FAQ notes that "(fan) purists tend to disregard this."

This is supported by the BBC link; the "controversy" note was my addition (again, now self-reverted in favour of the version prior to either of our edits regarding this matter). Also, it's not quite so simple as "a few old school fans choosing to stick their fingers in their ears"; note that the revised series contradicts the one-time-statement in the TV movie, as do comments from the producer of the revived series. Given that this is a reasonably important detail about the character, the text here should reflect what the main article covers (albeit in a much more condensed form, of course). --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's my problem, CKatz - you addition of the word "controversy" adds heat where there is no citable proof of such. You may think it controversial, but the single RS source you cite does not. And feel free to supply citations that support your statement that the revised series directly contradicts the movie's statement; I don't recall seeing such.

The crux of this, as I see it, is that you feel that there should be far more emphasis on what is essentially a minor continuity issue. If it were as "controversial" as you say, start producing a great many sources than you have. That would support your contention of the "reasonably important" nature of the material. I am also concerned with UNDUE issues here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack, please stop - you complain that I am "edit warring" (your words, not mine) but you are repeatedly reworking the section to put across your take on it. The BBC site does not limit the "purist" view simply to older series. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've sought to keep the issue of your edit-ewarring on your talk page for the most part, but when you complain that I am not following BRD and then fail to actually pursue any discussion, you have only yourself to blame for the results. I would urge you to consult with others on the wording of the BBC faq; they say that purists tend to disagree. They do not say purists of the revised series. They do not say it is controversial. They simply say that purists tend to disregard the canon that he is half-human (and when the BBC says something is true, then it is canon, period).

However, lets not get drawn into a discussion regarding canon which is wholly immaterial to the matter. What is on point is that the use of the word purists allude to those who believe in a "purer" essence of Doctor Who. By definition, purists are reflecting on the past - the purer essence of what Dr. Who is and is not. It seems too far a stretch to include purists from the revised series, specifically because it came after the movie. therefore, it's appropriate to refer to the fans of the original series.

I would ask that you - prior to keep reverting - use this discussion page as it was intended, and seek a resolution here. Understand that constantly reverting is only going to add unnecessary drama and make finding a workable solution that much more difficult. I've cut you a break in the past and not reported you for 3RR. Let's try to keep it amicable and workj here to find a resolution. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Cut a break"?!? Please - you've repeatedly reverted in your own opinion, yet you're acting as if it is all on me. Note that you've made these invalid claims re: 3RR while completely glossing over the fact that I actually restored the page to the version prior to either of our changes, per BRD. Despite that, you continued to change the page to reflect your own preferred version instead of leaving the original.

As for the "earlier" part, you are drawing your own conclusions there, as well as speculating as to when the BBC FAQ was even written. I have made it a more neutral "in the television series". I would hope that you would respect your own request above regarding reverts. Otherwise, it would seem that we would need to remove it altogether and leave only "The BBC's FAQ for the programme notes that 'purists tend to disregard this'", because the BBC comment does not in any way support limiting it to only one era of the show. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you support that assertion, CKatz? I believe I fully supported my view, which actually uses the citation. Perhaps we are at loggerheads in regards to this issue. Since you seem to be growing a lot more prickly than necessary about this, perhaps it is time to bring in a neutral third party. Please feel free to file the RfC, as I remain unconvinced of your unsupported argument. Until then, I've edited in a more neutral version, since we cannot find common ground on this issue. It has the virtue of being accurate without being specific (which we cannot in the face of exacting and explicit citation). Maybe leave it be until you find a neutral third party to mediate. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the BBC entry doesn't support your text about he earlier series; that is your own speculation/interpretation. As for being "prickly", please note that you're the one making comments about reporting and "cutting a break". In the absence of such completely unnecessary and unwarranted claims, the discussion would certainly be far more productive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I readily admit that I respond rather poorly to editors who repeatedly revert without discussion. You (with your 70k edits) may not have been aware of that entirely natural reaction. Those who revert three times in less than a day (and even resetting to a prior version still counts as a revert, as you are removing another's edits in doing so) should know better. Forgive me for negatively interpreting what may have been a simple, overtired accident on your part.

Anyhoo, let's reboot. My take on "purist" infers that someone is paying heed to a purer version of something, instead of something less pure. Are you getting something other than that? If so, explain. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Really I think this is a nit-picky detail that doesn't need to be mentioned at all. There are many ways writers could explain away any admission that the Doctor is half human. The only thing that is clear is they have not referenced this in other episodes or such in a way that gives this admission any significant meaning.

Style of police box

I'm not sure it's fair to describe the TARDIS as resembling a 1950s or 1960s style police box; it doesn't seem particularly well drawn from any era box. Is there a source for this?MartinSFSA (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See TARDIS, second cited reference. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean that source that breached BBC guidelines and was denounced by the corporation? We can do better than that. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You've lost me. Breached what guidelines? Denounced when? Edgepedia (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The BBC were not happy with the promotion of the book, and felt Parsons had broken their guidelines. Subsequent editions made the unauthorised nature of the book's Doctor Who connection more apparent. So, in almost fifty years of publishing, there has to be a better (authorial, canonical, or at least authorised by the BBC) source for making the claim it is a "1950s" style police box rather than a generic police box than an unauthorised book by Some Guy.

While I don't want to get into yet another endless debate about WP:RS, I too could write it is a 1950s style police box on my butt, and claim it's an "Unofficial and Unauthorised" guide.

And don't get me started on Michael White. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see we need a source that's been authorised by the BBC. Independence as its advantages. Edgepedia (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As do wildly inaccurate sources composed by self claimed experts and quoted by lunatics. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources discussing that book, saying it's wildly inaccurate? You'll understand that we can't take your word for it. Right now, the book seems to be a reliable source, and unless there's a source of comparable (or better) quality source saying the TARDIS isn't styled after a 1950s police box, there's nothing wrong with using the book. --Six words (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You are making me the subject of this question rather than the source or the claim. The change to the article was not mine (and has been deleted [[1]]), and I bring no baggage. I have zero interest in the matter and about as much in Paul Parsons and his book. He doesn't claim to be an expert in police boxes, industrial design, the history of BBC trademarks or the minutae of Coburn, Webber, Newman or Brachacki's intent. While we tend to regard any source as equivalent to any other, this does seem a deliberate attempt to use the worst possible one rather than the best -- a whole second Wikipedia article which references a popular science book written by a magazine editor, who only asserts the critical passage in passing (IIRC).

So, without reference to me, Paul, Wikipedia policies or other irrelevancies, can we find a better source to demonstrate it "to be a blue 1950s British police box"?MartinSFSA (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from finding a better source. DonQuixote (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm spending the time arguing the point. I don't intend to. MartinSFSA (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum, so there's no need to discuss the source in regard to anything but such “irrelevancies” as Wikipedia policies. There don't seem to be sources contradicting this book, and according to our policies, the book is OK to use, so the statement - should anyone want to - can be added to the Doctor Who article. If better sources are available they can be used, but they're not necessary. --Six words (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll meet you halfway; by consulting the unpaginated, unreferenced and ultimately unreliable source (it actually claims the TARDIS "looks like a 1960s London police box"). All you have to do is find the appropriate Wiki policy which explains the criteria is neither truth nor verifiability. Or you could try taking my point this time. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no halfway here, MartinSFSA: we have a source that says one thing, and you have no reliable sources to contradict that. You may think the book's research stinks to high heaven, and it may very well be a jolly nice Stilton. That said, it is a published source, and naught has been published to contradict that - at least, naught that you have offered to contradict that. Being rational comes into play at this point: the series began in the early 1960's and was meant (via the machine's chameleon circuit) to blend it. It broke, keeping the image of the police box from that time period. Granted, there is a little synthesis going on with that, but only a little bit, imo.

If you find a source that contradicts the source we already have, bring it forth. Until then, verifiability trumps truth. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You do realise, Jack Sebastian, that you are championing using this source which says it is a 1960s style police box to back up claims it is a 1950s style police box? Which is why it was invoked in the first place, and still sources this claim on the TARDIS entry. You have a source which claims one thing, entries which say another, and now your synthesis which says a third. There is a point to all this, however obscure, as it's apparent that even if we fulfill certain criteria which tend to define knowledge, they still demonstratively lack something. This is neither verifiability nor truth, an admin has suggested what I'm seeking is warrant.MartinSFSA (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If the source says 1960s, then change it to 1960s. Until now you never said the source doesn't say 1950s, but asked for additional sources because the source was “denounced by the BBC”. --Six words (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've been reading this to claim the last. Suffice to say even if it was backing the claim (it ain't) then I've demonstrated there's something sorely lacking from this level of sourcing. Simply changing the claim doesn't fix the problem. I believe it fails RS on a number of grounds: reliability, fact checking, context, authority, weighting and comparative analysis.

There are two issues: the paucity of the source and the epistemological one of lack of justification. Knowledge has been defined as a true justified belief. With an open source encyclopedia, the criteria of belief and truth would be too much to ask of a general audience. This leaves knowledge equals justification. This example gives a great demonstration of fallible sources which on the face of it are OK. Yes, I've taken this to the relevant Noticeboard. The policies don't make us; we make them. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's clear from sources like this and this, and indeed, our own Police box article, that the TARDIS design as we know it was introduced in 1929 by Gilbert MacKenzie Trench, the Metropolitan Police Surveyor. By 1937, the entire network of some 700 police boxes were all over London. Of course they were still around in the 1950s and 60s, so it's possible to describe the TARDIS as 50s or 60s style, but that's misleading, as the design dates from many years earlier.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Amy and the DarliksI

I am new to this wikipediasite so forgive me if I make mistakes. What I want to know is when did Amy meet the Darliks? I have watched all of them and don't remember that. Since nobody watchs the show but me I have noone to ask and now it runs around in my head. Does any body know?It is sad because now I probly won't be able to find this site again! lol [email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.170.2 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Daleks actually, and Amy met them in "The Pandorica Opens" and "The Big Bang". — Edokter (talk) — 21:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And Victory of the Daleks, of course. 86.28.121.200 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Linking from infobox to latest episode

It occurred to me that it would be useful to our readers if we had a link from the infobox to the latest episode, but I was reverted. What do other editors think? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I Like the idea to be honest not sure what the consensus will be though. 21:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

Untempered Schism redirection

"Untempered Schism" redirects here, but the article makes no mention of it. I suggest that the redirection point to Time vortex (Doctor Who) or The Sound of Drums, where the Untempered Schism is discussed. I think the former is better. 75.0.66.230 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Time vortex just has a bit in a list that mentions that the schism appeared in The Sound of Drums, so I've redirected it to The Sound of Drums as the main article. DonQuixote (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)