Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

WikiProject discussion

Latest "Doctor stories" templates

Thoughts on the necessity or existance of {{Fourteenth Doctor stories}} and {{Fifteenth Doctor stories}}? -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fourteenth is a little iffy since we've reached the extent of his appearances and they are limited. My only argument for potentially keeping it would be the fact that it exists for the other doctors and there is a case for consistency (I am fully aware of OTHERCONTENT, just bringing the point up). While it may be slightly TOOSOON for fifteen, I don't necessarily see the point of going through a TFD only because I think we will get to a point where it is necessary as Gatwa is already filming series 15. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I would keep them both, because the other Doctors have their own templates also. It also makes it easier to navigate each of these Doctors's episodes. Lotsw73 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think maybe the fourteenth doctors template could easily be replaced by the standered episode template. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Fifteenth I'd say is a necessity since he's already got at least two more seasons confirmed. Fourteenth is iffy, but per above I definitely feel like it would navigationally be useful due to the other numbered Doctors having one. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that {{Fifteenth Doctor stories}} is a bit too early, but its creation was inevitable so it might not even worth reverting again. {{Fourteenth Doctor stories}} is a bit excessive, though; it's practically identical to {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}}, and both are used on mostly the same articles anyway. Due to the obvious similarities between their eras, might it be worth merging with {{Tenth Doctor stories}} instead? It's already linked there, so it seems logical to simply add it to the bottom. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That could lead to confusion between the two incarnations Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it would any more confusing than the show already presents it. Here's a quick example of what it could look like (though I'm sure there are even better ways to do it). Just an idea. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objection to merging the two but I think I'd like to suggest this as a viable alternative too. I assume the episodes would be the primary target for most people over something like The Forever Trap or The Eyeless. It would also properly fall under the "television" subheader. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have decided to send 14's to TFD to get more imput on it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal at Talk:List_of_Doctor_Who_universe_creatures_and_aliens#Cleanup_Proposal

I have placed a proposal at Talk:List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens regarding the list and methods for a potential cleanup/improvement. I'd appreciate feedback/thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I am planning a rewrite of List of Doctor Who supporting characters (Should this be renamed?) and am preparing the rewrite in my userspace subpage. I've mocked up a basic overview of what the article will look like, as well as what entries I plan on including in the list (Mainly attempting to keep it just to recurring characters to avoid clutter like the current list.) I still need to add spin-off characters and cite sources where applicable, but this should be a basic idea of what's planned. Asking for thoughts on this and if anything should be changed, since the list definitely needs a rewrite and I want to make sure the new list will be of a high quality. Additionally, are there any notable recurring characters I missed from the list that should be added? I believe I have mostly everyone but I feel I'm probably forgetting a few big ones. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent italization

So why is Spyfall (Doctor Who) not italicized while The Five Doctors is? Five Doctors is one long part while Spyfall is two. Shouldn't TFD use quotation marks like the other specials? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I assumed modern era episodes aren't italicized while classic era episodes are. I don't know what the proper rationale is for that, but it's just what I've seen when it comes to how the episodes are split. I'm admittedly unsure as to whether or not specials have a unique distinction, but in the case of Spyfall, I believe it's just using the standard modern era format. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The episode Mission to the Unknown isn't italized and is a classic episode Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:WHO/MOS#Terminology. Basically: is it a single episode or a serial? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Single episode. It’s one part Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

All serials are multi-part episodes, but not all multi-part episodes are serials. Spyfall is thus not a serial, but yes, The Five Doctors should be in quotes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If there's not any disagreement to update the formatting to match other singular-episode releases, this is the list of articles that will need updating (easily do-able through AWB). -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, what was the rationale for leaving The Five Doctors as is when The End of Time (Doctor Who) was changed to quotation marks? I can't find that discussion, though recall it taking place. U-Mos (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 32#"The End of Time". I brought it up then forgot to ever do anything about it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, great. No objection to changing it. U-Mos (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Continuity" sections in Episode Articles

I've noticed these sections a lot in episode articles, and I feel mixed on them. On the one hand, these references make sense to cover if they're mentioned in reliable sources, but on the other, it feels very CRUFTy to me to just have it be stuffed in its own section where it feels like it only exists for random fans to be like "Oh hey that was an easter egg!" Admittedly, I feel like the information is better off covered in a separate section, or not at all given most references typically aren't that important to the wider scope of the episode overall. Thoughts? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

These sections need to follow WP:TRIVIA. For example, in the latest episode Empire of Death, the use of video from Pyramid of Mars (as well as the implications from that serial) looks like it can be easily confirmed, but to document every nod to past Doctors in the Memory TARDIS is likely going to be difficult using RSes. Without sources these sections should be trimmed or removed. Masem (t) 23:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Oops - I say that, because earlier tonight before seeing this talk page, I boldly removed the Continuity section from the latest episode. I initially left it to see what would happen after a first editor created it, but when a second editor added more unsourced cruft I felt it needed to be nipped in the bud before it became a dumping ground for trivia. I feel there are already enough references to Pyramid of Mars, particularly the Tales of the TARDIS special, that I felt the continuity mention of 'there were some clips in the episode' added nothing. And as I noted in my edit summary, I wouldn't be against documenting what appears in the remembered TARDIS, but these details would be better placed in the Production section with appropriate sourcing. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I briefly mentioned this in an edit summary on Empire of Death yesterday. Personally, I've felt like continuity sections are FANCRUFT a solid 90% of the time, even with an RS. If the information is that important it can either be written into the plot summary or into the production section from an out of universe perspective. Instead of "Archival footage from Pyramids of Mars was featured from The Doctor’s memory." (a quote from the section that was removed on Empire of Death), we could just as easily slide "The Doctor and Ruby viewed footage from his past battle with Sutekh in Pyramids of Mars into the overall plot section. It has a better flow and doesn't require a source as it's sourced to the episode itself. We all saw it. Similarly the portion reading "The Seventh Doctor’s jacket is shown in the memory TARDIS as remembered by Mel." was already worked into the filming section and reads "The set was constructed to reference past iterations of the TARDIS interior, with props from former companions and past incarnations of the Doctor being used in order to decorate the space." That's sourced and better falls within the suggestions given at WP:UNIVERSE. Even if it was sourced, it would be unnecessary to list all the references anyways as it would approach WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Basically my thoughts. I feel continuity sections should likely be removed or redistributed in the articles they are in. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It was the sixth Docotrs jacket Mel held. But besides that i don’t know how important such a detail would be. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations

I just want to say, great job WikiProject Doctor Who for managing to get all of the most recent series up to Good Article nomination standards so soon after broadcast! Given how much of a dry patch a lot of past episodes went through for a while, it's good to see so much collaboration going on in this WikiProject. Great job, and thank you for all of your hard work.

I do want to note, however, that we have a lot of nominations up right now. I myself plan to take on the nominations for The Devil's Chord and The Daleks' Master Plan, but even then we still have eight nominations up, plus one open candidate for a Featured List. Thus, if anyone's free to take on reviews of these other episodes, it would greatly benefit both the nominators and the WikiProject as a whole if you would. Just make sure not to take on ones where you have already significantly contributed, per a conflict of interest. Obviously there's no rush if you lack time or don't wish to do them just yet, but we should keep it in mind in order to avoid building up too much of a backlog. Many thanks in advance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We have been reaching very high levels of productivity. I myself was contemplating taking up TDMP before you posted this. We're very close to several possible Good topics several being one or two articles away. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The amount of productivity we've been reaching is off the charts and is definitely something to be proud of.

Just to keep everyone updated on things on my personal to do list which relate to this WikiProject:

• Space Babies is nearly ready for GAN, I just need to see if there's anything else to add to the production section and I want to expand the critical response section a bit.
• I expanded the viewing figure section on the Series 14 article. While I would possibly like to be a co-nominator on that page, I don't feel like I've contributed to it enough to nominate it single-handedly yet. If anyone wants to be the primary nominator I'll gladly help wherever I can. Otherwise, I'll try to perform a general clean up and copy edit on other sections of that article, at which point I'll nominate it myself if no one else jumps in.
• Following that, everything just needs to be reviewed, at which point S14 will be ready to nominate for a good topic.
• Once my current one wraps up, I intend on sending List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials to FLC. It's a really niche type of list, and bar a few episode summaries that I need to reduce, I've expanded it quite a bit.
• In longer term plans, I've been (very) slowly working on bringing List of Doctor Who cast members up to FLC status. I've expanded the prose for NuWho main cast members and have been hunting down sources for all the recurring appearances, which lacked significantly beforehand.

If anyone else has any other plans and needs help, let me know and I'll do my best to assist where I can. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I too have got some plans, mostly in terms of rewriting some of our fictional elements-related lists. My plans are:

-Rewrite List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. This is my active plan and I'm slowly chipping away at it. I'm mainly dreading having to summarize expanded media appearances given how few that's discussed outside of non-primary sources and due to how many exist for some of the more niche monsters, but all should go smoothly beside that. By the time I'm done I may try going for FL but it'd be down to how much Reception I can squeeze out of it.

-I plan on rewriting List of Doctor Who villains and List of Doctor Who supporting characters because frankly these are two of the worst lists on this entire site. The Villains list I'm admittedly iffy on notability wise, so I'll likely hit up the characters list just in case I have to emergency merge content.

-I plan on hitting up The Name of the Doctor alongside @OlifanofmrTennant in the coming days to help her get S7 to GA. As a solo project, I also plan on hitting up Cyberman as well because I feel there's a very good article we can make out of it that just isn't there right now. I additionally, per above, plan to hit up those two GA nominations in the coming days.

This is more long-term goals (These lists will take eons) but I hope it will help make the project overall higher quality for those unfamiliar with the series. I additionally want to try tackling more DW monsters with individual articles (Such as Ood, Ice Warrior, Weeping Angel, Silurian, and Sontaran) but those will come as I continue to work on the list and figure out how much time I have to work on stuff like that.

Side note, but out of all of our monsters, I feel that the Judoon have the weakest claim to notability as of right now, and though I have concerns with other articles (Like Slitheen and Voord) I'll see how those go as I do research. Based off my past searches, I believe the Judoon don't really have much in the way of developmental information or Reception/Analysis to demonstrate real world impact. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though, so if anyone can find anything on the Judoon, I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but I'll try and have a look around for Judoon sources sometime this week. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Every few days i try to knock out some of those citation tags on the main article. Also I’m trring to work to get Dalek back up to status then hopefulling working on getting Capaldi back to GAN. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

As an active member of WikiProject Doctor Who and WikiProject Television, where I've been for over ten years, I'm not overly active within GA/FL nominations (bar the initial series article nom's), but I've definitely noticed the activeness, eagerness and productivity of everyone here, and I just wanted to say what an amazing job everyone is doing. So while I may not participate in article nominations/discussions or such, just know you've got two thumbs up over here! -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing Audio Productions and Comics

Per my work on List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens I'm beginning to try and cover information related to these monsters in spin-off media. However, since it's so scarcely covered in secondary media, a lot of sources will require primary sources, but I am uncertain what our citation format is for comics (Such as those published Doctor Who Magazine or by Titan Comics) and audio dramas (Most prominently Big Finish Productions). What is our format for this? I'd assume we'd need authors, publishers, ISBNs, etc, but I am not sure what our format is and would greatly appreciate some help here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we use comic citations often. But I would suggest looking at Captain America which is a GA or Iron Man which is sitting at FAC Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend {{Cite comic}} for comics, and probably {{Cite AV media}} for audio productions. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain I've tried using Cite AV Media, but there's no applicable spot for Audio Productions. Would CD work, or should I try a different template? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, two ISBNs exist for dramas- one for physical, one for digital. Which should be used? Using both causes the cite to display as invalid due to the multiple ISBNs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: For {{Cite AV media}}, |type=Audio drama (or similar) would probably be suitable. The ISBN is up to you; I typically opt for whichever version I specifically used, as that makes verification easier. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll use the digital version, since I'm linking to the website for certain citations. Thank you for the clarification. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: if it helps I recently bought a Doctor Who character guide. It covers several creates and all eleven doctors... I would be more than willing to provide some of the contents of the book. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

What monsters does it include? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the ones that have an article on - Voord Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

What kind of information does the book have? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So it’s arrived and it’s leased than I hoped. Generic overviews of the characters so it’s probably not as helpful as I would have hoped. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah darn. A shame, but thank you for the offer either way. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for the Main Page

I've been taking a look at the main page recently and feel there's a few things that could be improved on. I'm more than willing to help with the suggestions, but I'd like to bring it up in discussion before anything is done.

1. Could we split the list of participants into those who are active and inactive? While sometimes it's hard to tell, there are many members on the list who haven't been active on the list for years (Some even more than a decade) and if people need to ping participants, it would be better for them to not have to sift through a list of people who have been inactive for eons.
2. The Task Forces listing seems strange given it's unlikely we're going to branch out into more task forces (Especially when Torchwood has been inactive for over a decade at this point). Should we still continue to list it as a possibility? I think it's unlikely it'll ever branch out.
3. The freenode channel no longer works and should probably be removed unless a new one is made, especially since most discussion takes place on-site these days.
4. The sample articles for books and audio plays (Lungbarrow and Jubilee (audio drama)) are in very bad shape despite being the sample articles. Additionally, do we really need a "sample device" article? The only device other than the Sonic we have an article for is the TARDIS, and there's very few other devices that would necessitate the need for a template.
5. Should we include an updates infobox? (Similar to those used at Wikipedia:VGCHAR, for example) I feel it would be beneficial for keeping track of talk page discussion, especially given how active both this project and the fandom have been recently.
6. Could we include Radio Times' Doctor Who sections in the reference section? They're genuinely very helpful for giving an overview of information, gaining reviews, and sourcing cast members, among other things.[1][2]
7. The Deletion Discussion archive has not been updated in some time. I feel at this stage it should either be abandoned, or have some effort put into locating all of the deletion discussions and adding them to the list.

These are just general things I've noticed of course, and aren't pressing issues, but I thought I'd bring them to attention to see what should be done about certain issues/if certain suggestions should be accepted and brought forward. Let me know your thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Can I add that there's a DW MoS - WP:WHO/MOS - that appears to be in dire need of an update? I did comment on the talk page for that previously, though (perhaps understandably) it didn't garner any response.

Regarding your points, 1, 3 and 7 seem sensible and straightforward suggestions. 2 the seemingly unofficial taskforce getting the new series articles up to GA standard could be added here. 5 there's an incredibly well hidden link in the 'Welcome' box that lists updates, but it appears to be working off the 'full list of pages' linked earlier in the sentence that is (a) incomplete, not containing any of the new series articles, and (b) includes articles that have been deleted since the list was compiled. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the new series task force idea. Though I do pose the idea of marking Torchwood historical. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my intention with this suggestion was more to recognise the work you and @TheDoctorWho and others have being doing on these articles rather than suggest more work needs to be done, but as you think it's a bad idea I'm happy to go back and strike the suggestion. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely feel Torchwood should be made historical given how inactive it's been for so long. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with marking the TW Taskforce as inactive, potentially merging any relevant content/participants here. Trimming the active participants here also seems worthwhile. No strong opinion from me on the rest.

There also used to be a newsletter for the WikiProject (March 2008, April 2008). I'd be willing to collaborate with someone on it, if anyone wanted to try and start it back up. It doesn't have to be monthly, it could be quarterly, biannually, etc. I think it would be a good way to inform people of updates who don't specifically watch this page, and potentially foster new involvement in the project. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd honestly be down to help with the Newsletter. Seems a good way of updating people on developments with the project and with the show. I feel it could potentially be embellished a little from the initial concept, but I'm admittedly not too familiar with how Wikipedia handles individual newsletters like this these days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a list of active newsletters at {{Newsletters}} if you wanted examples on how other WikiProjects handle them. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like something worthwhile, I've been considering proposing something similar, unaware of the existence of the defunct letter Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a newer updated design for it would also be useful. We can definitely start getting something together! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We definitely need to trim the active participants list before we get to the point of sending a newsletter out. There was a newsletter recipient list, but given that it hasn't been active since '08 it's out of date. For the first new newsletter we can use the updated participants list, and then give editors the opportunity to opt out of future editions after this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How would we go about trimming the list. By most recent edit presumably? If so is there a applicable bot for it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We should probably trim those who haven't been active in years, for a start, but for active editors who happen to be listed who don't participate anymore, I am uncertain how we'd discern it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For context, by trim I mean shift to a separate "inactive participants" list Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If its checking for those who stopped it would presumably be have to be done manually. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Most likely, yes. Obviously some participants are obvious since they're active frequently in WP:DOCTORWHO projects, but it'll take manual sorting for those that aren't obvious. Alternatively, we could keep the iffy cases in there and just leave it and figure it out after the Newsletter is sent out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, each entry has a contribs link. I suggest that we start by checking those, and anybody with nothing at all in the last year can be moved to the new "inactive participants" list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I just trimmed all usernames starting A-K, purely anyone who has been inactive for 12 months or longer. I haven't checked yet for editors who are actually still active within the project. Question though, is it worth keeping a list of editors who are inactive? I can't think of any particular reason why it would be useful for us. Unless someone else has one, I'll just mark it as historical as well. We can keep trimming the main list by just removing those who are inactive altogether rather than moving them to an a separate list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

For those unaware, the lists are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Active participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Participants/Inactive participants. The latter was created way back in April-May 2008, but has seen little maintenance since. Other WikiProjects also have inactive participants lists, for example Football, London Transport, Military history and Trains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS possibly applies here to a degree. That other WikiProjects do something is no reason for this one to do the same. I'll note also that in at least one case, their inactive list is bot maintained so doesn't take up a person's time, while we're updating our lists manually. In theory it might be nice to keep a list of historical contributors, but in practice I'm not sure how much it would mean here. Not least because presence on the list does not mean any contribution has necessarily been made (who among us hasn't signed up to at least one thing in life without following through?). At least we're only removing inactive users here and not, as has been the case in the past elsewhere, entire projects and project histories. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick update. I have finished trimming inactive editors from the active list. I went ahead and added and updated the inactive participants for now while we still determine if it's useful. I boldly marked the sympathizer list as historical and merged it with the active/inactive participants. I also marked the former newsletter mailing list as historical and created a new one. I went ahead and added anyone remaining in the active list to the new mailing list. We'll include an option in the new newsletter for people to opt out if they wish. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So now all thats left is writing the thing. I think that it should probably cover the first half of the year given thats when the recent productivity began. Then continue quarterly Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I created a very base design using this newsletter as a base. I'm not too attached to the design, so if anyone else has the time or skill to design something better, please be my guest. The old design just seemed too outdated in my opinion and my Wiki design skills aren't the best. The GOCE seemed to have the best in terms of simplicity, I figured we didn't want to overwhelm people. It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Newsletter/2024/July if anyone else wants to start adding to it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was also considering if we wanted a new name for it. Space-Time Telegraph is good, but just considering we're revamping everything else, we could change that as well. The Gallifreyan crossed my mind as an option. I'm open to other suggestions too. We can also keep the current name if its the best option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally like the Space-Time telegraph, I would say maybe through in a line in the first issue requesting alternative name sugestions? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I feel Space-Time Telegraph is more than fine but I feel leaving it open is valid as well.

What should we tackle in terms of subject matter? I assume the recent GANs and productivity for a start, as well as the coverage on series 14. Should anything else be covered? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it at Space-Time Telegraph then, just wanted to pitch it. I'd definitely agree in saying that series 14 and the work towards GA's/GT's on both Classic and New Who is something to write about. We could potentially mention the series 14/season 1 RM if that's still ongoing when we send it out. Also the seven points that started this discussion, see if anyone who isn't watching this page wishes to help update the information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel both are good. I do believe 1 has been addressed already, though. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Do either of you have any specific portions that you want to write of the topics we've discussed (or anything else even)? I can take anything that's left, I just didn't want to take anything anyone else planned on writing given I already wrote the intro. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm down to write any of the sections. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: why don't you write over the proposals that started this discussion since you're the one who originally proposed them? If @OlifanofmrTennant: is interested in writing, perhaps she could write over the GA's since she sparked most of the productivity there? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Are we still covering the move discussion? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's still active when we're ready to send the newsletter. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah alright. I've been pretty busy with some scary stuff recently but I should be able to write it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 09:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho I've written a mockup for the section about the proposals. (Which will ironically be very funny given we're linking people to the discussion we discussed the newsletter in lmao). Let me know if you feel it should be altered, since I was admittedly uncertain how to frame these proposals in something like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the two of you for writing your sections! I was hoping to wait a day or two here to see if the series 14 RM gets relisted or closed. I'd really hate to mention it and have it closed two minutes after I send the newsletter. Once that's done I'll send it out promptly. (If there's no official relist/closure by Saturday night, I'll go ahead and add/send it at that time.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sent Went ahead and sent it tonight. Thanks for helping out guys! If we're hoping to send quarterly, this is probably close enough to count as the June edition and we could also get issues out in September and December? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That could work. I'm down. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A question about the newsletter: concerning the entry about "The Star Beast" article, what does being still salty about the move concern? Is it about this move? -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

A belated reply to the proposals listed at the top of this section...

1. This point has already been addressed.
2. Although it would be cool to see further task forces operating under this WikiProject, it seems very unlikely that any further task forces will be created. I support removing the listing, but we should definitely keep a link to the Torchwood task force for easy access.
3. Agree with removing the freenode channel.
4. Agree that the book and audio play samples should be changed to better quality articles. Agree that the "sample devices" template should be removed.
5. The updates infobox seems not a bad idea, but it clutters the Wikipedia:VGCHAR page a lot and looks odd, pushing the regular text down the page. Is there a better way to present the same information?
6. Yes, we should definitely include the Radio Times references.
7. Wow, the deletion discussion page was last edited in 2009! It would probably be easier to abandon this deletion discussion altogether.

My suggestions

1. I think we should include a link on the main page to the newly-regenerated newsletter.
2. We should also make the signing-up-for-the-project link easier to locate. It seems lost in the lead sentence, surrounded by all those other wikilinks.

Mr Sitcom (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Sitcom Ah, sorry I didn't reply to this until now, I didn't receive a notification of this.

VGCHAR has been updated since this post, and now has shifted the updates to a separate tab. Admittedly I'm not sure about something like that for this WikiProject all things considered, as while I feel the updates are useful and helpful for maintaining articles, I'm honestly not sure of how best to arrange it. Something I didn't notice before is that we do have a recent changes thing similar to them already, but it's not updated to current standards and hidden out of the way. I definitely feel the second paragraph of the "Welcome!" box could be expanded with this information but I'm admittedly not sure how to do so (As I feel we could expand it or make it a seperate box entirely).

I definitely agree on linking the newsletter (especially since this is planned to be an ongoing element) and I agree on making the sign up notice easier to locate. Admittedly not sure on the best method of doing so to make them easily visible to readers, however. Perhaps it could be done alongside the expansion I mentioned above? I'm not entirely sure, so I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That WGCHAR page looks much better formatted that way! With regards to the recent changes link, I think we should update it to current standards and place it in a separate box near the top of the page, along with a link to the full list of pages, although that page hasn't been updated for some time either – should we invest time in updated that page?

In the "Welcome" box, we can write something like "Click here to sign up to the participants list!", in bold, in a separate paragraph below the introductory text. Perhaps we can list the link to the newsletter under the "Organisation" box... Mr Sitcom (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. At worst it seems more tedious than difficult.

I do feel we could probably put the Newsletter either where the freenode channel currently is, or put it above the associated WikiProjects depending on people's thoughts, with a note to sign up for the newsletter close to it? I do feel putting the sign-up incredibly far away from the organization box may be counterintuitive given the two aspects are associated with each other. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think we should focus interest on updating that updates section, though I'm curious if there's not an easier way of doing it than going through every article manually. There are two links in the last sentence of the first part of the infobox; two very-easily missed links that I have a devil of a time finding each time I look for them even though I know they are there! A full list of pages in the WikiProject can be found here and recent changes to these pages can be seen here. (the bolded words are where the links are in the project page, I haven't linked from here). It looks like the former was to a degree manually updated, but presumably there would've been a script to output all the articles tagged as being part of the project? Otherwise as you say it would have been tedious to generate. The latter link appears to be some kind of clever thing that updates the results based on changed to the articles listed in the first list. This means that if we update the list of articles, the list of updates will be generated automatically. I hope someone knows an easy way to get a list of all articles that are tagged as being part of this project. (Apologies if I have at any point misunderstood either the object of something, or how it works) JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates § Article inclusion on future Good Topic

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates § Article inclusion on future Good Topic. Regarding whether or not Doctor Who mini-episodes should be included in Good/Featured topics for the series in which they were produced. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi

I was wondering if anyone would wish to assist me in getting this article to GA. I attempted myself but it was failed. I plan to continue on it myself but am hoping to get another editor on the article for round two. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft notice

This is a notice that there is a draft for The War Between the Land and the Sea at Draft:The War Between the Land and the Sea until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion - List of Doctor Who villains

I have nominated this redundant article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who villains. Please feel free to participate! U-Mos (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Spyfall part one at List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials

Part one of "Spyfall" is currently listed at List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials, despite not being a special, and in the specials table (in a quite frankly baffling format) at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). Alex 21 has reverted my removal of this, claiming that "it's been discussed"; I see no evidence of this, and indeed note disagreement through the edit history of the specials page. I don't see any reason to include it both here and as a series entry, which of course it is; it's already mentioned in prose in the specials article (in the same manner as non-special Christmas day episode "The Feast of Steven"). U-Mos (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not uncommon for TV episodes to air on New Years, especially season premieres. See Sherlock series 2-4. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet is it uncommon for the episode to be moved from its regular timeslot to air deliberately on New Year's Day, in the exact same fashion any other "special" episode would be aired. (Thank for the the singular example showing how apparently "common" it is.) I would support listing The Feast of Steven in the same manner, if we had a table on the specials article for the classic era. I've most certainly discussed it on a talk page in the past; apologies if I cannot remember the location of every discussion I've been in over ten years, but I'll endeavour to find it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The article has been updated with the relevant sources. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

On the Subject of Fictional Elements in this WikiProject

I've noticed as of late a heavy assault on a lot of articles focusing on fictional elements in our WikiProject, which includes several ongoing AfDs and several former AfDs. This makes sense given that a lot of our articles on these subjects are rather... well, bad. For example, look at the article on Sixth Doctor in comparison to something like Ninth Doctor or Fourteenth Doctor, who are GAs. The Sixth Doctor has no developmental information, way too much plot summary of every expanded media appearance, and primarily lacks citations to secondary, reliable sources. Obviously this is just one example, but it's a highly recurring trend. I mean, look at articles like Gallifrey or Sontaran, which have highly similar issues and are on wildly similar subjects. And then of course we have our list problem, with articles like List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (Which I am working on but have had to park due to scheduling issues) or List of Doctor Who supporting characters (A contender for the worst fictional characters list on this site). Many of these articles are just relatively low quality and, unlike episodes or seasons, which have a breadth of out of universe coverage due to their production, are much more targeted by deletions due to the fact their notability is far iffier due to their primarily in-universe status.

This problem is only going to continue to compound itself as seasons progress and more and more people begin to turn a more scrutinous eye to these things. I'm certain most of the articles we have right now have the necessary coverage to prove themselves notable, but just haven't had that done due to a lack of attention being drawn to them until it's the eleventh hour and we have to rush to find sources during an AfD or merger. For the sake of not only preserving these articles but also benefitting our readers, I propose a Fictional Elements Improvement Drive. These articles, for the most part, are far less difficult to source than episodes due to these typically being smaller subjects, and they also tend to have heavy coverage in book sources in terms of their development and analysis. If we pool our resources and minds together, I'm certain we'll be able to improve our coverage and knock this problem out of the way going forward, because unlike episodes, this section is highly unlikely to significantly expand (Outside of the occasional new Doctor or Companion) and thus should be easier to get out of the way if we focus on it in the now.

Currently, we have, according to our character template:

19 articles for incarnations of The Doctor, as well as the Doctor's main article (Which will almost certainly be the most difficult article to improve out of all of them), bringing the total to 20. I will note that Dr. Who (Dalek films) and The Valeyard have iffier notability than the others, so these two should likely be prioritized first in the circumstance they turn out non-notable.

43 articles for Companions who appear in the main series, as well as the main article. There are additionally 5 articles for spin-off companions and 17 articles for supporting characters, as well as Iris Wildthyme, bringing this total to 67 articles. Counting Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures, we have more, but these are lower priority (And it helps many Torchwood characters are already GA).

We additionally have 23 articles for series antagonists, as well as alien species, with another 3 articles (with one currently at AfD) for lists. I will note this list includes several articles with dubious notability, such as Voord and Judoon, so this one I feel may be easier to prioritize than the Companions, of which there are many. Articles such as Dalek and Cyberman should also be prioritized, Cyberman especially due to its complete lack of information. This topic also includes Death's Head, which falls under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics, who we may be able to collaborate with on the subject.

Excluding Ninth Doctor, Fourteenth Doctor, Rose Tyler, Jack Harkness, Astrid Peth, Adam Mitchell (Doctor Who), Jenny (Doctor Who), and Harriet Jones, who are already GA, and Gwen Cooper, Oswald Danes, Esther Drummond, Captain John Hart (Torchwood), Ianto Jones, and Rhys Williams (Torchwood), who are also already GA from the Torchwood side of things, we have, in total, around 112 total character articles to focus on, though I may be slightly off since I probably missed an article or two. In terms of other in-universe articles, we have 2 articles for planets (Gallifrey and Skaro), 7 articles for series concepts (Sonic screwdriver, TARDIS, Regeneration (Doctor Who), Time War (Doctor Who), Torchwood Institute, UNIT, and Cardiff Rift (Didn't this get merged months ago?)) as well as several rogue lists, such as List of Bernice Summerfield characters, List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs, Dalek variants, and List of Torchwood characters. Thus, this adds at least another 13 articles (Though I know I'm missing quite a few articles) bringing our total to around 125 articles at minimum that need work. This may sound like a lot, but the work depends on the scope of the subject. I'd assume subjects such as Sara Kingdom and Danny Pink have less work needed due to their shorter durations compared to subjects such as the Daleks and UNIT, for example, and I'd assume at least a good few of the subjects here are not notable. Given the amount of work, it may not be worthwhile to attack every article, but I feel we should at least try to get a good bulk of them. Thus, I've listed a few proposals below:

1. We make a list of priority in terms of subjects we feel need the most amount of work. Subjects that are mostly complete or do not need a high amount of work can be ignored while work is focused on high importance subjects (Such as the Doctors, for example) or on subjects that are weak in terms of notability and are at target for AfD.
2. We select a group of articles to work on, and only focus on those. These will be subjects we deem most relevant to the project going forward, and any lesser important subjects can be sidelined for a while and worked on when editors see fit.
3. We make a long term goal to improve all fictional element articles. This will take a while, but is certainly do-able (Take it from someone in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Video game characters) if we put our minds to it. Issues with this one include potential burnout and a lack of focus due to its long term goal, but would potentially alleviate the problem permanently.

Obviously this does not need to be acted upon immediately (I myself cannot work on these subjects for some time due to irl commitments) but I feel this should be something of a priority for the WikiProject in order to alleviate a problematic issue in a highly trafficked area of our WikiProject. I have made this proposal now in order to allow time for discussion in order to gauge potential activity in the Drive, as well as how this is best handled given its scope. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject and whether it should be done, and if so, how it should be done, because this is a major problem for this WikiProject that I feel is best addressed now before it ends up getting any worse. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposal but would like to make a few suggestions. First of all for such a big project I think we would benefit from collaborating with another project, such as Fictional characters or Television Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this, since this proposal will go far smoother when working with more editors. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I boldy added the progress bar to the homepage. We have significantly more stubs then I thought we did. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant would it be possible to get a label on which class is which, as well as if this is encompassing every subject or just fictional elements? Right now it's a bit unclear. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Its every article tagged with WP:DRWHO. Hovering over the specific color with your cursor reveals what it is Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I will say this will be helpful for tracking overall progress, though for the circumstances of fictional elements, a much smaller group, I'd say we'd want to strive for B-Class on every article (If the editor wants to nom it for GA/FA/FL afterwards, then that works fine as well) as that shows the article is in a good state overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE: Should Doctor Who be considered one, two, or three shows on Wikipedia?

I'll preface this by stating that I have not watched Doctor Who in well over a decade and I'm posting this to avoid it being taken to RfC, and I hope it can be settled within this WikiProject. On Wikipedia, should Doctor Who be regarded as a single television show, two television shows, or three television shows? The three versions maintain continuity of the show between them. Reliable sources typically consider it one cohesive show. There is a prevailing notion of it being divided into two shows from 1963–1989 (with a film in 1996) and 2005–present, known as 'Classic Who' and 'New Who'. The production company restarts the series numbering, which some argue indicates three shows. The production company restarted the series numbering in 2023, and this has caused an eight-month long discussion on Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Season 1 vs Series 14.

1. One television show (1963–present)
2. Two television shows (1963–89/96 and 2005–present)
3. Three television shows (1963–89/96, 2005–23, and 2023–present)

Svampesky (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One (opener of this WP:RFCBEFORE). My argument is based on reliable sources. These reliable sources regard Doctor Who as a single, unified programme, maintaining the continuity of the three iterations as part of one cohesive show, rather than as separate entities. However, the show has been produced in three distinct iterations: 1963, 2005, and 2023. Before the 2023 version an ad hoc solution was to name the 1963 version 'seasons' and the 2005 version 'series'. If Doctor Who is considered three different shows, the article for Doctor Who may need to be divided into three separate articles (per iCarly and iCarly (2021 TV series), and The Twilight Zone). This might also necessitate splitting the article for The Doctor (Doctor Who) into three to maintain this, or to restructure it into Portrayal of The Doctor in television (per Portrayal of James Bond in film). There is a lot of 'having one's cake and eating it' with the production company of Doctor Who, reliable sources, and Wikipedia. Svampesky (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One per the above. Sources generally consider Doctor Who as all one show, such as recent Sutekh explainers ("who last appeared in Doctor Who almost 50 years ago") and anything regarding the anniversary dates. Plus the single main article is WP:STABLE and has existed across the period of time where two distinct eras of the show (with a lengthy production break, unlike between series 13 and the new season 1) were apparent. U-Mos (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One as has always been the case on Wikipedia. The so-called "New Who" is an informal term used to describe the 2005 revival, which is not a separate show / reboot / sequel / anything like that. And the fact that the season numbering has changed multiple times does not mean "the production company produces it as three separate shows" at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Amended the post. Thanks for pointing it out. Svampesky (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One the several splits are all continuations of the same show, and not separate, individual series. Basically everything I'd add has been said already by the above posts, but saying it's three shows really makes no sense. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment Should a consensus be reached for 'One', there would be no distinct separation between 'Classic Who' and 'New Who'. Wikipedia can still acknowledge both but as the same entity, as reliable sources do. This might result in mergers, such as merging List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989) with List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), as the current consensus for those particular pages is 'Two'. Svampesky (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue against merging them since while they are the same show, they've had such a large gap in time with such a large number of episodes between them that it's far better organized as two lists. They may be one show, but Wikipedia:SIZESPLIT is still a valid rationale. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The pages are already very long, I'd argue for splitting it by decade (but retaining the decade overlap of the lead actor) for readability, not to distinguish separate shows, to '1963–1969', '1970–1981', '1982–1996' (to include the television film), '2005–2008', '2010–2021', '2024–present', 'Specials'. The current '1963–1989' and '2005–present' is a consensus of 'Two' as it distinguishes "Classic era" from "Revived era". Svampesky (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"Classic Era" and "Revived Era" are still considered separate iterations of the main show, which feature vastly different styles of episodes between each other. It's considered the same show, but this distinguisher is still a way used to separate the wildly different production styles of the show. I feel splitting it into smaller lists would be detrimental to readership since you have to hop between several smaller lists instead of just hopping between one or two with a clear division due to production styles, especially since these lists don't really have a proper ideology for a split out (Would they be split by showrunner? How many Doctors should we measure a split of a list by? Should it be a specific span of time?) and it just feels like it's asking for future debate where people use all sorts of criteria to merge lists together or split them in an arbitrary way, especially given this WikiProject already has a rampant unnecessary lists problem to begin with. These lists have been used without difficulty for some time and are arguably better for the casual reader (Since the casual reader understands the difference in production values as "Classic" and "Revived" but would not understand, for example, several of these more complicated random splits). While "Classic" and "Revived" aren't two separate shows, they're still terminology used to refer to the difference in production values from before and after Doctor Who's hiatus that are in widespread use. Even if they are describing the same show, it's not uncommon for long running fandoms to group up parts of the run by certain names (Take, for instance, the Silver Age of Comic Books. Many of those comic series (For the most part) are still one ongoing narrative and thus count as one ongoing series, but various points in that history are referred to as "The Silver Age" or "The Golden Age" to differentiate them from different points in history where production values are different.) I don't see an issue with continuing to use the terminology, nor do I see an issue with this list as it currently is, since it's in a state most greatly beneficial to the average reader. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: especially since these lists don't really have a proper ideology for a split out, by decade (with an overlap of the lead actor) as I suggested. Svampesky (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Decades concerns me given each decade had considerably different amounts of episodes (The 80s for example have a large number less than the 70s, while the 60s have more dwindling numbers than the 70s) and for the revived series, you can't split it by decade evenly, since 2005-2015 splits halfway through Capaldi's run as the Doctor, and moving to a different list to discuss his last series would be confusing for non-fans. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

1) A decade, as in calendar-decade. 2) The two lists are already too large. 3) The lists need not be of equal size. 4) If there is a calendar-decade overlap of the lead actor the list would end at the end of their tenure, but are grouped in where the lead actor acted for the most time (if an actor has one series in 2019, but five in 2020–6, it would be grouped as 2019–2026) thus:

• List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1969)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (1970–1981)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (1982–1989)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–2008)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2010–2017)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2018–present)
• List of Doctor Who specials

The '2018–present' list is because the 'Thirteenth Doctor' has more episodes in the 2020s. The specials list includes the television film. Svampesky (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I still worry about the fact we're basically tripling our current list total. Given the two current lists handle the subjects more than adequately, I see splitting as potentially being more complex. Nonetheless, I feel I've said my piece, so I'll let other editors comment on their thoughts on this for the time being. Should it be decided this is the best method of going about this, I'll help aid with the split/move, in any case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the above is overkill for the revival era; four series only in one list feels needlessly small. I don't see an issue with 2005–2017, or even 2005–2022 (175 episodes, still significantly less than the 60s and 70s) if we wanted to align with the series number reset in the event Doctor Who series 14 etc. are moved. Also, I'm definitely against separating the specials into their own list outside of the chronology. U-Mos (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Aligning with the series number reset in the event Doctor Who series 14 is the reason I opened this RFCBEFORE. If Wikipedia separates anything using this, that would be a 'Three' consensus. Svampesky (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

No, not if the list needs to be split for size reasons (which it does) - that's just pragmatism. U-Mos (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If the list needs to be divided due to size constraints and is split by versions, this would suggest a 'Three' consensus, per Lists of The Twilight Zone episodes which splits it's lists as different shows. Splitting by calendar-based iterations would imply a 'One' consensus. Svampesky (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

if it does get changed, I'm okay with 2005-2022, that's sensible---oh new reply? you just found yourself agreeing with the three, welcome aboard! Continue as you were, ignore me. 69.161.57.181 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If the lists are excessive, another recommendation is to merge every other list in the above suggestion into:

• List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1981)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (1982–2008)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2010–present)

I'm not saying if I support or oppose this list grouping, as I'm not a fan of the show. This approach would overlap the 'classic era' and the 'revival era', aligning with a consensus of 'One'. Svampesky (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: the 60s have more dwindling numbers than the 70s whilst there were 270 episodes broadcast in the 1970s and 252 in the 1960s, that's a difference of just 18 - and consider that the 1960s episodes were broadcast over a somewhat shorter period - six years and six weeks, rather than a full ten years for the 1970s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Ah good catch. I misremembered the amount of episodes in the 60s. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The episodes list was split due to size issues, not because of the "Classic Who" vs. "New Who" distinction, so this discussion shouldn't impact them. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur regarding the sizing issue. However, the point at which they were divided was at the distinction between the classic version and revived version. Those lists have a consensus of 'Two', so this discussion has the potential to impact them. Svampesky (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's less of a consensus of "Two shows" and more of what I mentioned above, terminology used to describe the difference in production between two different eras of the same program. I don't think this discussion should impact this article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, is The Simpsons a "consensus of Two" shows based on List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (season 21–present) existing? This is an identical case, simply disambiguated by year instead. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. The Simpsons is split into two, I'm assuming, because of size constraints and has picked a round number to do it by. Doctor Who lists cutting off a season 26 is not a round number to do it by and looks to me as an 'Two' consensus. In fact, if the consensus is 'One', I wouldn't be opposed to a The Simpsons approach with the first list group going from Doctor Who season 1 – Doctor Who series 4 if it should be grouped by a round number with thirty series in each list as:

• List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–2008)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2010–present)

Per The Simpsons splitting the lists into blocks of twenty seasons, an alternative list structure for a 'One' consensus could follow grouping by every twenty Doctor Who series:

• List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1983)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (1984–2023)
• List of Doctor Who episodes (2024–present)

Svampesky (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

These articles do not need to be merged if the consensus remains as it being one show. The article has been split for improved performance; we simply chose an easy place to split the two articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Having scan-read the above discussion, note that the WP:PEIS of the two articles are 1,821,728/2,097,152 and 1,227,182/2,097,152 bytes, respectively. The 1963 article won't be expanded any further, and the 2005 article is currently at 58% of its acceptable limit - neither of these articles needs any further split, by decades, showrunner, or any format. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Treat as one show but if we need to split on size, there's plenty of sourcing to talk about Classic and NuWho eras as separate aspects of the same show. That is, there should remain a DW franchise article that talks about the fundamental origins of the show, overview of the main elements (the Doctor, regeneration, TARDIS, Daleks, etc.) and the impact the show's had on British culture. But in terms of discussing the broadcast history and development in detail, separate pages to talk about the different eras of the shows (making sure they are clear these are described as eras of the main show) would help alleviate size issues. --Masem (t) 19:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One, there's no question that WP:Reliable sources treat the show as being one continuous show (as per examples given in other responses). I'm not 100% convinced that comparing Doctor Who to other shows is useful due to, to paraphrase a well know saying, the unique way the BBC has made Doctor Who. In a manner of speaking, 'Doctor Who' could be considered both a franchise and a single show. Practically speaking, one show does not mean one article - because if it was one article it would have to be split for size. While other articles offered up as comparison seem to split to three levels 'Franchise [ie Twilight Zone] -> Series [ie 1959 series] -> Season [ie 1959 series season 2]', Doctor Who missed out the middle and goes from 'Franchise' level to 'Season' level. I don't think introducing 1963 series, 2005 series and 2024 series articles would be useful for Doctor Who. That would seem to be an unnecessary split of 'Doctor Who' given that the 2024 series article would make multiple references to events in the 2005 and 1962 series. Obviously the number of seasons is a complication; my understanding is when the show was first made, they weren't numbered as such. Rather, after however many years, episode guide books were published which organised and numbered things, and these episode/series/season numbers were subsequently adopted by both fandom and the makers of the show. RTD has rather complicated things with his comic-book-like renumbering of the 2024 series which is currently being discussed, but the numberings for the 1963 series and the 2005 series at least are well established and commonly used by reliable sources. So broadly speaking, while Doctor Who may not me treating itself like other TV show articles on Wikipedia do, the articles are still structured in a way that is both internally consistent, and supported by multiple reliable sources. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

One very obviously. There's also nothing wrong with the current way the episode list is split. I feel like you're trying to fix something that WP:AINTBROKE. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)