Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

Cybermats

Ok the Cybermats have beeen listed as the rivived creatures/monsters/aliens for some time now, and recintly i've noticed it's dissappering and reappering again and again. i think we should just leave it alone. what r some other thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.104 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

They haven't appeared in the revived series. So don't put them there.Ratemonth (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Acutually they are appearing in the second to last episode of series 6, I googled it and it's true - Mr. Brad Sorce: Google, Youtube, and TARDIS index files Wiki links to sources - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMTCm7CeDc4 http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Series_6_(Doctor_Who) 6 August 2011

Other wiki sites and Youtube are not reliable sources. Find a real source.Ratemonth (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok - http://www.thehiveforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1191 , http://www.thedoctorwhosite.co.uk/cybermen/cybermen-designs/cybermats/, http://www.denofgeek.com/television/803589/doctor_who_series_6_which_monster_might_be_returning.html, http://doctorwhospoilers.com/2011/3594, http://geeksofdoom.com/2011/03/10/patrick-troughton-era-creature-returns-in-doctor-who-series-6/ They were also in the Doctor Who: The Adventure Games - Mr. Brad 6 August 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.104 (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats enough prof for me - the guy who made this talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.139.104 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second to last episode of series 6 hasn't aired yet. Once it has, I for one won't oppose including the cybermats (if they're really in that episode, that is). For now this seems to be speculation - informed speculation perhaps, but out of Wikipedia's scope. --Six words (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You need a reliable source. The sources you cite are all fan/rumor sites getting information from one another. How can we trust the original YouTube video to be reliable when the poster can't get James Cordon's or his character's name right? (He refers to him as Tony something -- the character is Craig Owens). Also, Mr. Brad, please use four tildes to sign your posts. There's a link below this window you can click to make it easy. Drmargi (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I say it's all well and good to put the Cybermats up, but let's please consider this. Are the Cybermats really villains in their own right, or is this equatable to RTD deciding on resurrecting the Dalek Supreme or Moffat feeling like bringing back the Special Weapon's Dalek next year? Not to mention that some things end up on the cutting room floor; maybe they were filmed, but they could just as easily be cut if it's decided it adds little to the episode and they're running overtime. Comics (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Also; it'll be interesting if it turns out they're similar creatures to the Cybermats but a different creature; see TCE vs Laser Screwdriver for the Master. Comics (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As of last night, this is completely confirmed. Not the scariest villians yet, but pretty cool nonetheless. OwlOfMinerva7 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Main Image

The main image should be changed. That is the title card for Series 5, they changed it in Series 6, the most recent series. 90.192.93.15 (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with you here. However, I'm not entirely sure that other editors would. There are many copyright complications which are included in uploading an image to Wikipedia. You may need to inform an administrator about this or investigate further on the topic. Rhain1999 (talk) 12:35 17 September 2011 (AEST) —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC).
What connection is there between the correct identification of the image, and copyright? It either is or is not the title card for Season 6, regardless of copyright or fair use issues.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It is different from Series 5. It has the BBC insignia under the word "Who" and there is a flare on the TARDIS light. 90.192.93.15 (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done TrebleSeven (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Main Image

The main image is the branding logo, not the title card, which WP:TV says we should use. Could someone please change it back? Glimmer721 talk 01:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Doctor Who is cool"

On my computer the lead sentence states that the TV series is called "Doctor Who is cool". I am aware that a bot went through and removed this, and when editing the page the 'is cool' doesn't appear, so I'm just wondering if it's a glitch for my computer or if somehow the text has some kind of protection which prevents it from being deleted (a little far-fetched, I know, but it has been removed from the article's source so...). I'll post an update if it turns out to have just been a glitch on my comp. Comics (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've experienced a number of pages being slow to update today. It should be fine now, after I purged the page's cache. Regards SoWhy 12:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fine now. Cheers Comics (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition to "International Viewership"

The show was broadcast (will be broadcast) in Austria exactly like in Germany (so someone needs to edit "Pro7" to "(ProSieben - [new series S01-02], Syfy) - [Reruns of the new series], Fox Channel - [new series S05-present])" because Syfy and Fox Channel both air in Austria as well as Switzerland and Germany. AL333 (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in introduction

The statement regarding the CBC co-production credit in the introduction is incorrect as it was also credited for and provided seed funding for Series 1, not just 2 and 3 - in fact the CBC was involved enough in Series 1 that Eccleston and Piper recorded special introductions for the CBC broadcasts. Also, the intro should be updated to reflect the fact the current season has now concluded with production under way on the 2011 Christmas special and production of Series 7 expected to commence in early 2012 per previous announcements. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless you suggest stating 'The series has been renewed for a Christmas special and seventh series/season' I think the opening is okay in suggesting that Season/Series 6 has concluded. All it says is, basically, 'Rory became a main character in Series/Season 6 and it was the first since the 80's to be broken into two halves'. I'm sure that this is pointless as well, but just to appease some of the higher-ups do you mind finding a source crediting the CBC? It's just Wiki needs sources, and some people are sticklers for sources and won't let you put it in unless you have a source that says 'The CBC helped fund Series 1 too!'. Comics (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
CBC is already mentioned as having carried Series 1 in the separate article Doctor Who in Canada and the United States in section 2005–06: Series One. The discussion there also notes the new intros by Eccleston and Piper. This release info at IMDB for Episode 1 "Rose" should be satisfactory [1].--WickerGuy (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who Upscaled

Just thought I would let everyone know Doctor Who Series 2 is now airing on Watch HD. This is the first time Series of Doctor Who have been shown Upscaled a part from the Christmas specials which was Upscaled last year on BBC One HD. Thanks Sfxprefects (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Alex Kingston...

...is not part of the starring main cast. She is a recurring guest role. Please remove her from the starring section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.46.167 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook strangeness

Wanted to note that if you paste the URL of this page into a Facebook's status window and post it, this is what you get: "Doctor Who is a British science fiction television programme produced by the BBC. It is the most catastrophically amazing programme in the world and Matt Smith is so fit. That might be because of his undeniable genius or maybe because of his adorable social awkwardness- regardless he is an icon for..." Pretty weird, since none of this text appears on the page. 50.54.237.170 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly an old "vandalism" edit that got cached somewhere, even though it is no longer here. umrguy42 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

please, i think doctor who first aired in november 2, 1963, or at least thats what it says in the guinness book of world records.

99.57.20.144 (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It is well documented that "An Unearthly Child" aired on 23 November 1963 example- if your copy of Guinness says the 2nd, it must be a misprint. Etron81 (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing glitch

First paragraph has obviously been vandalized but when attempting to edit it, offending text does not show???Msan (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Cluebot fixed it. Maybe an edit conflict? Try refreshing again; it's showing OK for me. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing Episodes

They found some more old missing episodes:

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Film Adaption

BBC Films, Heyday Films and Walt Disney Pictures plan to make a Upcoming Theatrical 3D movie based on this series and distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.248.27 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A google search with the keywords 'Doctor Who BBC Films, Heyday Films and Walt Disney Pictures' comes up with 54K results, of which the first page includes Wiki's list of Disney films, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and The Princess and the Frog. Do you have any source to back your claim? Besides, the official site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news) doesn't have anything on such a movie. If there was a Doctor Who movie coming out, I'd think the BBC would announce it on its own sites don't you think? Comics (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just a rumour Androzaniamy (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Infographic timeline

I have added under Reference Sites a link to an infographic time line put up by cabletv.com. My browser's "Page info" says the page was last modified today, 20 December 2011. (Well, it's still the 20th here in the US!) --Thnidu (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a grey area, but 'hot' linking to off-site images is not allowed. — Edokter (talk) — 12:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Saleh

Why is the word Saleh above the Dr. Who image on the upper right side of the article? I can't seem to see it when I am editing the page. I couldn't find any reference to that word and the Dr. THC Loadee 19:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)

Revelations about the Doctor

It is written that we learn in series 6 that "The Doctor" isn't is real name. But we know that from series 4, episode silence in the library, The Doctor says to River "You know my name". --Armageddonsnipe (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it known from pretty much the first episodes? I recall Ian saying something about him just being 'Doctor' and in Series 1 (2005) Craig says in Rose that he's just called 'The Doctor' as if it's a title, not an actual name. I'll find the proper Ian quote. Besides, in the Third Doctor's era doubt was cast that 'Doctor' was really his name and in Series 2 (2006) Madame de Pompadour asked 'Doctor who?' and I think added 'It's more than just a question'. It's a fact that's been known for years, even decades, not just since 2008. Comics (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I found it:
  • Ian: That's not his name. Who is he? Doctor who? Perhaps if we knew his name we might have a clue to all this. (The Cave of Skulls, 1963)
So yeah, I'd say it's always been a part of the series mythology that 'The Doctor' is a title he uses that hides his real name. Comics (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article?

Who else thinks this should be a good article? Please make a talkback template if you reply. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Wikipedians should improve this article, and make it in "Good article" in wikipedia main page in 2013 around its 50 years anniversary as a form of celebration. --王小朋友 (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea about making this a "good article". Wikipedians should make an effort to lift this article up to standard. The signature of the previous contributor suggests a new paragraph - The influence of Doctor Who on worldwide culture? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Radio Times article

An IP just added http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-02-20/doctor-who-series-seven---what-we-know-so-far. Don't know if there's anything we don't know, it's mainly speculation. Edgepedia (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC) http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-02-20/doctor-who-series-seven---what-we-know-so-far

Changes of appearance

In Death of the Doctor (by Russell T Davies), from the Sarah Jane Adventures, which is a spin-off show, the Doctor reveals that he can regenerates 507 times. Shloud this be included? --王小朋友 (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A link from the article on that episode: [2] 124.186.168.10 (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added the information and the interview link. I think it's legitimate information, and casual researchers may well think it's an omission. Like it or not, it's stated on screen, so we have to acknowledge it, but with the statement by Davies added in. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose we should also have the fourth doctor's joke about having "ninety lives - and already used one hundred and thirty of them" (!) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Redundant sentences

In the first two paragraphs, the last two sentences in each make the same comment about the BAFTA Award and even have references [1][2] and [8][9]. I suggest that one of these pair of sentences be removed along with their duplicate references, but which ones? Cisop Sixpence (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed it from the first paragraph because the second deals with cultural significance and impact. DonQuixote (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

CBC as co-producer error

Although a magazine is cited regarding the CBC being a co-producer for Series 2 and 3, it was also co-producer for Series 1. The credit is visible on the DVD release of the episodes and that's also why Eccleston recorded intros for the CBC broadcasts in 2005. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is BoBoiBoy listed as a related show in the chronology of the info box on this page???

Why is BoBoiBoy listed as a related show in the chronology of the info box on this page??? The only reference I could find was on the description page for this show was a note that the show was canceled and in it's time slot was played Doctor Who instead. From Ariel (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It happens. Sometimes it's vandalism and sometimes it's someone who gets a bit carried away with the linking. If you think it's wrong, remove it and add an explanatory edit summary. --Drmargi (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BroaDWcast

I am referring to external Wikimedia site BroaDWcast: http://gallifreybase.com/w/index.php/Broadcasts_around_the_World

I am one of the editors of this site, we would very much like the site to be considered a "reliable source"; the site contains details pertaining to foreign broadcasts of Doctor Who, since 1964. The content is fully supported with newspaper clippings. What steps do we need to take for this consideration to be made? Thanks.

Jpreddle (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No Doctor in Germany

It's really a Shame. A few years ago there were only a few episodes on german tv, so i could learn who the Doctor was ([3]), but not more. That's it. :/ --Lkl ★ 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very interesting. It seems that they began showing Doctor Who (Sylvester McCoy episodes) back in November 1989 (!) I think the article would benefit from a quick run of airdates after each listed country, so we know which countries aired the original series (and when) and the new ones.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Changing the companions

After some toing and froing yesterday, I've added a note to the companions listed in the info box, asking that Gillan and Darvill are not removed until they are replaced in canon. As such, please don't change the article until they've officially left the show (they're last episode is broadcast), not before. Thanks drewmunn (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Whooves

I personally believe that Doctor Whooves, the background pony from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, has become popular enough to be included in the spoofs and references section. I request a description of Doctor Whooves be added there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelatart (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a chance in hell. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As much as I don't want a bunch of bronies coming over here and messing about... I believe he may have a point. Dr. Whooves is a popular fan name for one of the ponies, so much so that it is the unofficial name for it (the official being Time Turner). It falls under the category of "cultural reference". -Punkminkis (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There is apparently some evidence that "Doctor Whooves" or "Doctor Hooves" is a semi-offical name now: [4] Etron81 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As the major editor at the MLP:FIM article, there are no strong sources to jump on that topic here at Doctor Who (we have sources to mention it on the MLP:FIM page). But until we have a strong reliable source that specifically states that the creative directors took this approach, it's not appropriate on here. (Still, I want to know who wrote "timey wimey" on the character's collectors' card...) --MASEM (t) 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
A reliable source needs to prove that it's a notable popular culture reference. There can be many pop-culture references on a series as popular as this but lack of reliable sources can prove that it's not very notable. If there are sources, whether you like it or don't like that it would be on there it can be allowed unless there is a more valid reason that it shouldn't. Jhenderson 777 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

50th anniversary news -should it be added?

BBC press release. 101090ABC (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, An Adventure in Space and Time will be an origin story and should be added. I was wondering if this was the same as the "series" that will honor the 50th anniversary? Adventure sounds like a separate 90-minute BBC movie. — WylieCoyote (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but have come to understand that this would not be part of the series of specials. Obviously this will be known when the anniversary year comes. 101090ABC (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, we should push this back up to FA and get it on the main page for the 50th. The JPStalk to me 12:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It's appeared on the main page before (when it was an FA), so it has no chance to re-appear again at least as TFA. Perhaps there's a way to make a DYK or ITN element. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
An Unearthly Child then? The JPStalk to me 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be a good one to shoot for, alternatively Doctor (Doctor Who) would be possible as well. (TARDIS was also on main page once before). --MASEM (t) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Episode Lists

Question in respond to feedback on AFT5 do we have a list of Episodes of Doctor Who.Blethering Scot 23:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignore found it.Blethering Scot 23:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to http://sciencefiction.com/2012/09/01/two-new-clips-and-a-new-logo-for-doctor-who/, the logo will be different for EACH episodes --94.3.169.176 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we know. So why is the main picture for this article changed to the Asylum logo? Will someone undertake the task of changing it every week? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes we do know, doesn't mean it can't be brought up on this board. But someone could get the picture by possibly going onto iPlayer every week and taking a snapshot of it. Also depends on how different it is each week, but I don't think it would matter if it changed greatly or mildly. Charlr6 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing. The old logo is now out of date, so it shouldn't be used. What do to instead? We should select one as an exemplar for the season and use it. For now, the one from Asylum works; add a hidden note not to change without discussion first, and avoid the weekly revolving door logo. Somewhere along the line, perhaps after the first five end, we can revisit the choice of logo. Easy peasy! --Drmargi (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The logo should be changed weekly until a few weeks after 'The Angels Take Manhattan', and should be reverted to whatever is used on the official website.--86.141.94.48 (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Drmargi. Just use the Asylum logo to avoid the revolving door, then come back and look at it again after this first batch of episodes has finished airing. Changing it weekly seems like a pointless exercise; this feels like a couch gag or something - just a fun little thing to spice up each week's opening sequence. Comics (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, to add onto what Comic said, it doesn't have to be the most current one, just one from the current season. The difference between the first two was the decoration on the typeface, and at the size we use, all but indiscernible. If we start making weekly changes, we justify "I like this one better" changes, and who knows what else. The title card from Asylum is the first of the season, and that's when the article has traditionally made a change. We can revisit after the first five. --Drmargi (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to be the one to do it, but I personally think that if anyone wants to change it then they can. It is pointless, but I don't think we should stop anyone who would wants to upload the new logos themselves. No specific editor is the boss here on Wiki so we can't stop whoever feels the need to update the logo for the next five weeks. If anyone wants to do the 'revolving door' we shouldn't stop them, its not a huge deal anyway as realistically it is simply a new logo each week. I remember when David Tennant was around and there was a revised logo for Doctor Who then on this page which looked more or less exactly the same as the previous one except a very minor difference. Wasn't really much point of that but it still didn't do any harm.
And I don't think that if it was to change each week it would be "I like this one better" changes, as it really wouldn't be, it would just be the latest logo. It would only be a scenario like that if lets say it was changed until the fourth episode each week, and then someone changed it back to the Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, two episodes previously. But whoever would want to change the logo each week, they should feel free too otherwise we might start a sort of "I like this one better" scenario ourselves, except it would be "lets just keep it my way and to this logo". Charlr6 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes we NEED to stop it. Each screenshot is non-free content, which must be kept to minimal use. One logo example is appropriate use of NFC but not one for each episode. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
We NEED to stop it? Like for each episode already for the past couple of series have had new logos for each episode and we've kept changing them and only now realised we should stop and keep to one?
And if each screenshot is non-free content then how are we avoiding copyright doing that? Wikipedia isn't going to get sued if we use them.
What about if on the Series 7 page we list each logo in a small box showing each new different logo? Charlr6 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is only one logo in the article at a time, i don't see that it does break NFC. It would if we had every logo from every episode in it, correct me if i am wrong.Blethering Scot 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this NFC even have a page? It's been mentioned twice and hasn't had a link to a Wikipedia rule page. And whats the point of having all of the Doctor Who logos here - [5]? I can't see the classical ones being used any more, and wouldn't be any need.
No one mentioned NFC until recently and before the discussion was that we shouldn't need to update the logo because it would be 'pointless', but I think that if someone wants to update it, we shouldn't stop them as no one is the boss of anyone on here. Charlr6 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont think it forbids one image but this is it Wikipedia:Non-free content, it certainly would if you wanted them all displayed on the page at the same time. Also the purpose of a cat is to keep the files together they may be used on old season pages i would imagine but that doesnt interest me to be honest.Blethering Scot 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NFCI and WP:LOGO, including a logo, such as the DW logo, IS authorized for identification purposes. You could even include old logos, if they are the subject of sourced commentary, such as a section on "Iconic Doctor Who Logos".
Now on the subject of should we change the logo every week, I personally say no. Is it really necessary? When the DVD comes out, is it going to have 14 different logos? I see it like the Google logo. They change the style every now and then, something specific-themed, but their "official logo" still hasn't changed. Same thing here: a different style every week, episode-specific themed, but the "official logo" hasn't changed. -PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 19:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to do it, then we should let them do it, then whatever is the Doctor Who logo on the official website after Angels Take Manhatten, we then use that logo. And when the DVD and Blu-Ray comes out I can see them keeping each logo related to the episode in and not going to cut it out. And whatever is on the box is going to be the Doctor Who logo used on the website. Didn't they recently slightly changed it as well? The 'main' logo as you would call it. Before it was "Doctor -tardis- Who", now I believe its changed, and have seen a picture to "Docor Who -tardis-". If someone wants to upload a new logo though we shouldn't stop them. And the only reason someone would possibly revert it would just because they don't like the change and can't stand seeing a new logo every week. It wouldn't do any harm to the page. And actually, just looked it up, the Doctor Who 'official' logo on the 'official website' has changed, it is now the Dinosaurs on a Spaceship logo. [6] Charlr6 (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Right now, (two eps in), we have a logo shot from each episode. The unused one (from Dinosaurs) has been "downgraded" into the image for the episode itself, while the "Asylum" one is being used two places (here and the episode). LOGO use here is fine, that's not a question. But now if these are being added because of either being used as the "new" weekly logo on here, or otherwise put as the episode infobox image, that is against non-free content policy. Just because the "skin" of the logo changed does not mean we need to include the various difficult logos across the board (the logo is still obviously recognizable as Doctor Who) and so, for example, right now the Dinosaur logo on the Dinosaur episode page is in violation. That's why I'm strongly discouraging any more logo-with-different-skin uploads, because unless there's specific commentary on the individual versions, they fail NFC policy. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you explain how Dinosaurs on a Spaceship fails. It only has the one non free file which is the correct screenshot for that episode so should come under Film and television screenshots. There also is no gallery.Blethering Scot 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Because we already have a DW logo representative of this season (the Asylum one) used on the main DW page. There is no automatic allowance for non-free media on individual episode pages, and the Dinosaur-specific one is not discussed in any depth on the episode page and is duplicating the existing logo. Ergo it fails NFC. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Check out WP:NFLISTS. To quote: "It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." talking about list articles, which episode articles would fall under. Which means each episode article should NOT get it's own logo. -PUNKMINKIS (CHAT) 01:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A new title card is needed from 'The Snowmen'. 86.141.91.233 (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Quick note, I'm closing this conversation for now. It takes up a massive amount of space on the page, and can't progress at the moment, even if we wanted it to.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who/Archive_21&oldid=1144972564"