Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 1

NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.

Rationale for splitting Doctor Who into two pages

If it's worth having CZ articles on this programme - and I would argue that it is because it is a highly significant part of British culture - then it has to be: (a) distinct from the Wikipedia version; and (b) easy to maintain. Presently the WP version merges the 1963-1989 show, the 1996 movie, and the relaunched 2005 series into one article. However, what about fans who are mostly interested in the revived show? What about those interested primarily in the making of the original? For this reason - and also because it's easier to maintain an article on a programme that's no longer made - I decided to split the Wikipedia content into two pages.

Ideally, this one will make minimal reference to the classic series, and vice versa - people can follow up what they want. Additionally, there is no point competing with the legion of WP tellyfans creating and updating articles for individual episodes, so I have decided to remove those links from the CZ pages and replace them with external ones pointing to such places as WP. As CZ is supposed to be more scholarly, I think these pages should focus on Doctor Who's place in British culture more than which alien appeared on what ship, and when. Perhaps the only Doctor Who pages on CZ should concern aspects of the programme that are instantly recognisable and are understood by most people - the Doctor, the TARDIS, the Daleks and perhaps regeneration. (For example, Brits remarking that inside a house is 'like a TARDIS' will be understood instantly in the UK; likewise, everyone knows what to expect when informed that the new boss is a bit of a 'Dalek'.)

Of course, you are more than welcome to overturn any and all of this. John Stephenson 03:20, 3 February 2007 (CST)

I have to say this seems to me a bizarre & artificial way of doing things. The BBC & most books & websites regard the programme as a single entity, & I think it should have a single global article. That doesn't exclude separate articles as well. There are numerous references back from the new programmes to the old. And why should the new series have priority claim on the title? Peter Jackson 11:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter's conclusion, though not all of the analysis ;).

Splitting into Classic and current--or better yet Dr Who (2005)--makes sense for the same reason as having five billion Star Trek articles, but there should be a global Dr Who in the same manner as Star Trek or Star Wars. The new series should definitely NOT lay claim to the Dr Who title as a standalone.

Aleta Curry 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I to understand that this is a definitive assessment of which Who is on first? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have a full global article, you are going to have to spend most of it discussing the original series (1963-1989 and the 1996 film) because there is over a quarter of a century of it, whereas the current series has only been going since 2005 (with a break in 2009 with no series that year, only a few special episodes). Readers are likely to be interested in the new series, and will be wondering why they have to delve through an extensive discussion about stories told forty years ago using actors who in many cases have been dead for years. The alternative would be to have a shorter global article which drastically cuts material on the first 26 years, and inflates the discussion of the new series. John Stephenson 05:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly questions to be discussed about how the article should be done, but not having one still seems to me quite absurd.

As you say, most of the programme is the old series, so most of this article should be about it in so far as it's not general in nature (at the moment we don't even seem to have a list of the doctors, another absurdity). As I said before, there's no reason we can't have a separate article on the new series, prominently linked from the lead in this one, for those readers whose main interest is the new one. Peter Jackson 12:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An outside opinion, perhaps

I can't say that I've picked up the Doctor Who habit, although Americans who do not appreciate Monty Python and Grace Brothers are heathens. Nevertheless, I'm hearing something of a generic argument here, and, to some extent, which occurs on many other topics.

What-should-be-in-how-many article controversies often take place here and at the Other Place. Here, however, there is an attempt to have some means to make such controversies less of a problem. Some of the ideas, very much in working discussion, are at CZ talk: usability.

There is, I see, Doctor Who/Related Articles. My suggestion would be to use it as a place to consider structures. Use hierarchy on it and clone it, appropriately, to the various sub-articles. For example, there might be, at the "parent topic" level, an even more general "multigenerational science fiction series" article that picks up Star Trek and its incarnations. At the first subtopic level, there could be subheadings for the shows, for the main actors, and for anything else that differentiates the Doctor Who experience.

I've taken the liberty of creating a subtopic, CZ talk: usability#Science Fiction generally, Doctor Who specifically, not with actual pages, but examples. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

My sister tells me Richard Dawkins current female partner (wife) is a former Dr Who companion. David Tribe 04:37, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Lalla Ward, yes. Should put that in somewhere... John Stephenson 04:49, 12 February 2007 (CST)

copyright

Are the pictures from the BBC going to have copyright isues? I might add i have no idea but it is something to consider before you upload a lot more. i used to love Dr Who when I was a kid, I 'm amazed it is still running. i can remember one episode with Jon Pertwee having an invisible spider on his back. I watched from behind the sofa for that one. Chris Day (Talk) 00:02, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I think they qualify under U.S. 'fair use'; if you disagree we can delete them. John Stephenson 00:48, 23 February 2007 (CST)