Template talk:Doctor Who

Doctor Who Template‑class

This template 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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Would it be okay to change this so that the subcategories are a bit more obvious? Also, what about the DVD releases article? :) --JohnDBuell 05:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC) How about:[reply]

Someone would have to work on spacing.... :)

The current template's link at the top says Doctor Who, which links to the portal. However, if I was just an anonymous viewer using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, I would click on the link (expecting to go to Doctor Who) and end up at the portal. From the portal, there is no obvious link to Doctor Who. For this reason I would like to change the link at the top to go to Doctor Who, but include a link to the Portal as well. How should this be done? Thelb⁴ 08:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Serials list is one of the most important, and deserves a point of priority up with spinoffs, audios and DVDs.

For that matter, I'm dissatisfied with the categorization in general; it's nice to know which articles are Featured, but do they deserve their own section? If we list Dalek, why not Cyberman or other major alien articles?

I'll stew on this a bit and see if I can come up with something better. Suggestions welcome! Radagast 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about —Whouk (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC):[reply]

I've made a minor adjustment to the spacing of the "related series" section. I'm slightly sad to lose the featured articles, but I suppose it's really tooting our own horn a bit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the FAs, but we were already duplicating one entry in the box and that was only going to increase ;-) —Whouk (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that K9 & Company never made it to a series (yet!), oughtn't it to be "Related productions"? Angmering 18:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's "BBC spin-offs"? Productions is a bit wider than the official BBC productions I was trying to restrict it to, but you're quite right about K-9 and Company. —Whouk (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"BBC spin-offs" could be read to include things like Slipback and Death Comes to Time (both produced under BBC auspices). How about "Related television programmes"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just "related programmes" should be enough, I think. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Is there a consensus for this version now? I see Tim has moved the portal link to its own line in the template itself. Should we do this? I'm keen to keen the box as short as we can. —Whouk (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also self reference issues lumping-in portal in with main space articles. Tim | meep in my general direction 08:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. Having the blue background at the bottom of the box actually looks quite good.

Separate issue - should the DVDs article move the Lists section? —Whouk (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could move "Monsters and Aliens" and "Celebrity Appearances" to a line together. They certainly share some common themes. (ahem.) --Aderack 01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As not all of the spoofs are programmes (although I realise that's all but one), and as it is a big list, could we put Doctor Who spoofs in the lists section rather than related programmes? It would fill out the celeb appearances line too and would leave the bottom section for italicised titles. Any views one way or the other? —Whouk (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the criteria for inclusion in this template? List of Doctor Who episodes by date seems kind of sketchy to me - it's a little fancrufty, and it's got an ongoing merge discussion. --Brian Olsen 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a heads-up than a call for discussion, although if anyone wants to discuss it they can: the consensus at the Doctor Who WikiProject is that it's premature to put these programmes in the template at this time. (I mention it here because four different editors have tried to put Sarah Jane Investigates in the template today.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been confirmed in the latest Doctor Who Magazine, the consensus seemed to be to add Sarah Jane Investigates now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the Related Programmes section of the template. It was broadcast after the early morning repeats of Torchwood on BBC3. It's only a 10 minute programme and the listings show only 3 episodes. I would have thought there would be an episode of T D-C after every episode of Torchwood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphod Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 07:25, October 23, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this should be in the infobox or not: the question is whether it's going to be significant enough to merit an article of its own. Three ten-minute episodes make a fairly marginal case, IMO. I think I'll remove it for now, but if an article is created and maintained, it can be restored. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wondering: is there a particular reason the Big Finish Who range isn't linked off the panel? It's a pretty significant hunk of material! Arguably, it's about as significant as the books -- especially given its much broader exposure of late, with the BBC7 transmissions (and commissions!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.9.136 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November, 2006 (UTC).

I've inserted main characters if that's okay with everyone because it's fair to say that the new series has much more of a main cast than the old series, and those are the current main characters. UNIT and Cybermaen are debatable, but fiddle with the actual contents of "main characters" if you want. Give it a chance though, this is what is done with most other series templates.

I trust the point is clear enough now?

Apply the above discussion and reasoning to a list of every single actor who has appeared in the show over its forty-five-year history. No way is that notable. The list of source music is pretty dodgy as well. I'd be interested to see the broader reaction to that.

A list of every UNIT member has its argument, though certainly not on a root directory for the show. A link off a link, at best. Case in point: Big Finish Doctor Who chronology, a list of roughly similar encyclopedic merit (to which I have contributed from time to time). Notice whence it's linked? Not from the top-level series template, because it's not that important. The article is linked in whatever context it is a distinctly appropriate or notable discussion to raise: at the bottom of the List of Doctor Who serials; at the bottom of the List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. If the UNIT list belongs anywhere, it's linked off the main UNIT page. Maybe off a few key character pages.

One thing you do not want in a root directory is clutter. Put it in, it will get weeded out. This template is for important, basic concepts, key to the understanding of the show. The nice thing about hypertext: it is branching. Use that feature as it's made to be used. --Aderack 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken on discussion prior to the removal of the TARDIS travellers list, I apologise, I clearly missed this - normally an automated message is sent to me before an article I have edited significantly is deleted. I would also like to point out I understand the reasons why the page was considered 'fancruft' and was deleted.

However, regarding the template - Aderack repeatedly removes links to lists that s/he deems unworthy of their place there. Without nominating them for deletion and allowing a discussion to take place as to their validity, how can s/he establish the consensus on whether or not the links should remain in the template? Wolf of Fenric 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have a separate section for pages to do with novels/ audios etc. Here is an idea of what it would look like

StuartDD 16:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only problem with this is the term Expanded Universe - it's a bit Star Wars-ish. I can't say I've heard it used to refer to Doctor Who spin-off media. Is there a substitute term that could be used? Wolf of Fenric 19:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Adaptations and tie-ins" works well. I wasn't stuck on "Expanded universe". I just wanted to see what the general reaction was. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Doctor Who in America and Doctor Who in Australia really main pages? What about in Britain? Canada? Spain? The Dominican Republic? It seems odd to single out just two countries in the main pages section. Wolf of Fenric 02:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really need these on the template. They are "main pages", but are not really relevant. StuartDD ( t • c ) 10:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current companion/s should be listed on the template next to the Doctor. It occurs to me that although the article Companion is listed directly next to the Doctor already and links can be found off that, casual viewers and readers may want to quickly find information on the lead characters - the Doctor and the companion with him on screen at the moment. It would also be very easy to update when companions join and leave. Although, thinking about it, the Doctor is currently linking to the article about all of them Doctor (Doctor Who) not Tenth Doctor and it may be problematic and spoilerific for viewers outside the UK who are behind in episodes. So actually, I disagree with myself and think it should be left as it is and I need not have typed this. Wolf of Fenric 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your disagreement of yourself. If people want to find out about companions, they can go to the Companion page. StuartDD ( t • c ) 08:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted recent undiscussed changes by Finister2 - the infobox is for listing key Who articles. Cassandra, Werewolves etc. are not needed - that's what the Lists section is for (in particular, Creatures and aliens and Villains). Adding extra rows and line breaks also makes the box bigger than necessary. Tphi (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering about the changes, I noticed they were undiscussed but now Finister2's undone your revert. So, where does this lead the template changing? --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say Andromeda, any further alterations should be discussed here first. This includes the reverted edits by Finister2 (and the unknown IP that was probably him/her too) Tphi (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that the template is a high-visibility one (especially now, with the new series commencing today) and the clear lack of support for the changes as presented, Finister2's edits have been reverted and the user has been warned. Based on contribution history, the IP is clearly related to that account; please advise me (or any other admin) if the problem persists. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realise we can't put everyone in the list of key production staff, but surely there's room for Terrance Dicks somewhere? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the chunk of his career that was involved with the show and the novelisations I would think he could be added. Of the other writers (who weren't also producers) in that section he was more involved than Terry Nation and as involved as Robert Holmes. Unless there is a big objection in the next few days I would say you should be bold and add it. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But after that we ought to draw a line. There's an important group below Dicks and the present company (consisting roughly of Dennis Spooner, Douglas Adams, Kit Pedler and Eric Saward, all for various reasons), but it's quite a gap. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is premature to add them at this time. There has only been one episode with them in it (yes they are part of the whole season but that has WP:CRYSTAL problems.) That article is going to be an ongoing nest of WP:SPECULATION, WP:SYNTHESIS and edit warring until this season concludes next fall/winter and, IMO, we shouldn't direct readers there until the dust settles. Next, there is the problem of WP:RECENTISM, this subject is way too new and will, no doubt knowing S Moffat, go through changes during the run of this split season. Next, I will point out that the rest of the listings in that section have appeared in more than one season with the exception of "The Celestial Toymaker" (though he was scheduled to appear in the aborted 6th Dr season.) I would think that we should make that a requirement for inclusion in this navbox but, at the moment, it isn't. Lastly, the article is at AFD - and yes it looks like it is going to easily survive there - when that discussion is closed, in spite of my other reservations, I will remove my objection to the placement of the item in this navbox. I will consider removing my objection to the placement of the item in this navbox MarnetteD | Talk 17:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of the McGann movie, but if we list the Cushing movies (as "Dalek movies" -- what a strange classification), and all kinds of peripheral stuff like Faction Paradox, it really must be included. I'll put it in the same section, "Video", as the Cushing movies. Move it if you can find a better place, but we can't just ignore it.Barsoomian (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1996 movie is an adaptation nor a tie-in; it is for all intents and purposes an official episode, so it is realy misplaced there. — Edokter (talk) — 11:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need them, they are no match to the Master, Daleks, or even Cybermen in episode wise and they don't make iconic adveseries at the top of the dr who page, they almost appeared as much as Darvos and the Silurians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammynSophie (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He IS the second most recurring individual villain of the series.--Finister2 (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is also an offshoot of the Daleks. While I have no real objection to his being added I would suggest you post a link to this conversation at the Dr Who Projects talk page so we can get more editors involved. I don't think that this template is on many peoples watchlist anymore and it would be better if there was more input than just you and me. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Waris Hussein is missing from this nav table is shocking. It needs a directors section. --68.82.38.123 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be a "Key production staff" section at all. All other articles in the template are about aspects of Doctor Who, or direct derivatives of Doctor Who. The "Key production staff" section groups together a wide range of people for whom Doctor Who was only a phase in their lives, treating their Doctor Who involvement as if it encompassed everything there was to know about them. Not to mention that it's completely impossible to police or be objective about – for instance, why is Euros Lyn included, but not Nick Hurran or Douglas Mackinnon? Why Delia Derbyshire but not Ron Grainer? That entire section is a free-for-all. —Flax5 19:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems odd as it includes Big Finish, but is otherwise made up of companies that have produced unofficial tie-ins and spin-offs etc. However it does not include BBC Books or Virgin Publishing, the latter which, like Big Finish produced licensed Doctor Who works as well as well as its own spin-offs. I am maybe missing something, but this seems a bit inconsistent. If so perhaps Big Finish should be removed from the section, or Virgin (and BBC Books) added? Dunarc (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Slitheen really deserve to be here. If so why not Davros, the Judoon, the Zygons the Ice Warriors etc? Dunarc (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd absolutely agree with removing the Slitheen - definitely not at the same level as the others. I personally could probable be easily convinced of removing some of the others too. I mean what criteria warrants something to be included here? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been WP:BOLD and removed them. I am fairly sure they were added because they were seen in three episodes of series one and then several times in the SJA's. However, they have not been seen in Dr Who in over a decade so your concerns about their inclusion are well founded. The criteria for inclusion isn't set in stone. Most that are listed have become iconic {and yes I know that is WP:POV) in some fashion or other. I think longevity should be considered. Now I know that doesn't apply to the Weeping Angels but they are a special case - even the CIA used their name for one of their operations. I suppose that all of them could be removed since they are mentioned in linked articles like "Creatures and aliens" and "villains" etc. but IMO the ones that are in the template at the moment are reasonable. We can always discuss new ones that come up and reach a consensus one way or the other. Now this is just one editors thoughts so please feel free to add yours. MarnetteD|Talk 22:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. I think the current ones now have the most public recognition, but I do wonder if Davros should be there as well as he has appeared with 6 Doctors on screen (and 1 more on audio) and is fairly well known (I suspect more so than the Sontarans with the general public, but that is not a suggestion to remove them). Dunarc (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added him and ordered them by group first and individuals second. I wouldn't remove the Sontaran's as they show up in numerous "fave villains" polls going right back to the 20th anniversary - and yes I am old enough to have been a part of that :-) MarnetteD|Talk 20:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks _ I think this looks better now. Dunarc (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome D. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I felt there was a case for adding Time Lord Victorious to the template as it is fairly notable multi company and media event. Also the Daleks! online series that is part of it, and is covered in the Time Lord Victorious article, is notable. However, I was not 100% sure where to put it in the template. The related media section, yes, but it crosses media and although it could be seen as a spinoff that is less clear cut than the articles already in that section. I have gone for the Miscellaneous section, partly as it currently includes Star Trek crossover and Dalek illustrations which arguably have some similarities, but if anyone has an alternate suggestion then I am happy to discuss further. Dunarc (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]