Talk:Doctor Who tie-in websites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doctor Who WikiProject
Doctor Who Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was once considered for deletion. The consensus, after 14 days, was to Keep. The discussion can be seen here. --khaosworks 11:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Torchwood

Please could someone change the Torchwood section? It's now changed from Access Denied to a "hub interface" - the computer systme used in the new Torchwood spinoff. Microchip08 14:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need this article?

On second thoughts, I think this can make an article, if we talk about the way it's been used in the programme and include screenshots of the websites. If anyone wants to take a stab at it, go ahead (I'm in the middle of grading at the moment). Might also consider a less unweildy title, but that's a small nitpick. --khaosworks 20:06, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Has anybody else noticed that on the geocomtex site it says: "I’m trying to get the Discotron-3 to flash in the sequence MED BIL EOTV". look at it backwards and you get vote Lib Dem?

Although that spells VTOE LIB DEM ... shows how bright Lib Dem voters are, finarr fnarr. Proto 13:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UNIT

Can any one hack into the UNIT site (http://www.unit.org.uk)? its not responding to Bad Wolf anymore, and we have to keep this page accurate. I'v tried all the obvious passwords.

Pydos

I've just tried "badwolf" and it works for me --Jawr256 13:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's "badwolf". One word. --khaosworks 14:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Another password is buffalo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.35.212 (talk • contribs).

Yup, but leads to a different page. --Edokter (Talk) 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Both passwords take me to the same page as far as I can see. What's the difference? Kelpin 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
'badwolf' takes me to the 'OPS board access' (red page), 'buffalo' promts me for another override code (anyting with 'O'), then presents a little flash game. --Edokter (Talk) 08:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I get the Flash game with both - it may be something to do with my browser - Firefox? Kelpin 08:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't even enter a password - the "Secure Login" button redirects me to the front page again. 217.44.116.12 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Frost

While looking in my Monsters and Villains Doctor Who book I saw on the Slitheen page a screenshot just before all the UNIT people are killed and you can clearly see Frost on the uniform of a woman sitting there.

Yes. See Muriel Frost for a brief discussion of this. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A theory on "Who is Doctor Who"

Could this have possibly been inspired by the Doctor Who Novel "Who Killed Kennedy"? Orville Eastland 23:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No direct evidence that it is, so it would be pure speculation. Of course, we know that the writers of the new series have all written for and are fans of the NAs and/or Big Finish audios. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flydale North site

I think the Flydale North site is a fan creation, not something made by the BBC website team. If you're a member of OG's Forum, see this thread; someone has checked the site's whois registry, and it's not registered to the BBC (as the three sites from the 2005 season were). Unless anybody objects, I'll remove the reference from the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OG and the Cybus Corporation

There is a thread on that very topic.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 12:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is, but there's no site, no domain name registered, AFAICS. One small thread. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've toned it down a bit, but I'm not sure it actually is notable, since there is no real basis for it other than we expect it based on the BBC's past behaviour. I'll leave it to someone else to decide if it should be taken out. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I checked the thread out again, and I don't really think it's notable. If we knew the BBC had registered a Cybus domain name (as they have with Torchwood) we could keep it, but as it is I think it should go. I'll take it out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll remember that, both of you. That you don't trust OG as a source.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be disingenous. There's a difference between OG's news page as a source and some free-for-all forum thread. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree (although elements of the British press have made the same mistake). It's not that reliable information can't be found in OG's Forum — postings by Shaun Lyon, Richard Bignall, Martin Hoscik or other people with established, proven connections to the production team can be trusted. However, the issue in this case isn't reliability but notability. It's notable that the BBC has purchased Torchwood domain names. It might be notable if there was a major flamewar or schism in the fan community over an issue (for example, Lawrence Miles' comments about The Unquiet Dead. It's not notable that a handful of fans — even fans on OG's Forum — have speculated that the BBC's Doctor Who web team, based on previous patterns of behaviour, may possibly set up a Cybus Corporation site.
All this is IMO, of course. I have no more authority than anybody else here — I'm just going by established patterns of notability and reliability not just from these Doctor Who pages, but from my general experience of Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cybus Corp

There is a site up, but the disclaimer cleary says "...created by fans...". If you check the history, you'll notice that I wrote up a couple pargraphs about it before reading the disclaimer in full.--Sean|Black 08:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this article is about the BBC websites, and that's how I originally set it up when I rewrote it, but perhaps the fan-made sites do deserve a very brief mention. I don't think we need to go into detail at all, but a listing would not be too much. I've tried to write up a section, which can be eradicated if people disagree. I'm not putting back the parody site, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, in fact, I was going to add the Cybus Corp link myself! I really started this section because I couldn't express myself properly in an edit summary. Having said that, I thought my bit about the Cybus Corp site was pretty good...*sigh*--Sean|Black 09:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Where's this disclaimer you're talking about? It's a nice site, with what appears to be publicity stills of the new cybermen, but I can't see any disclaimers on it anywhere. PaulHammond 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Go to the "Future Physiologies" section and highlight the paragraphs. It's in darkened text just above the "Click here to leave your comments" line. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move of page

As I explained very clearly in my edit summary, I moved it because the websites are not fictional. That's the point. They were websites of fictional companies and organisations (except Bad Wolf and Who is Doctor Who). The websites existed, though. Feel free to reply (though I don't expect you'll bother). Thanks,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here, not that we "won't bother". You moved the page without an edit summary[1], and I requested that you explain why: you did, and I thank you for that. The only reason it was revertedis because this is a fairly big change, and we should have a consensus for it.--Sean|Black 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that since the move has been reverted, the edit summary's gone, and I definitely did explain it in the summary. It said basically what was written above, and I'd actually be interested to know your problem with it. What links are there to fix, anyway? It redirects.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary goes on only the target page (ie it wouldn't go here if I moved this page, it would go there). Since that page has been deleted, so's my edit summary. It may be available to you, if you're an admin, you can see the content of deleted pages (but if it's been recreated, I'm not sure).--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
With typical equivocation, I'm going to agree with everybody: I think the move was a good idea, and I think that it ought to have been discussed first. I don't feel strongly about it, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a quirk of the way the system works - the field you fill in for "reason" would not be in the edit summary, i.e. page history, but in the log. In any case I personally would not support a move because the word fictional refers not to the websites' existence, but to their contents, and the Bad Wolf site's exceptional nature is noted in its description. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may refer to the contents, but it's not clear. If I say "a fictional town", "a fictional planet" or even "a fictional Tasmanian devil", you're going to think of something that's not real. Why should it be any different for a fictional website? Maybe Spoof websites in Doctor Who or Websites created for Doctor Who would be better, but I think that the word fictional should be kept out of it.

The field I filled out for reason was actually in the edit summary 'til the page got reverted! By the way, the CIN was good, wasn't it!--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry for accusing of not having used an edit summary. So, let's move on to the issue at hand: Should this page be moved? My opinion is two-fold: The page should be moved, but I don't like the proposed title.--Sean|Black 07:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Doctor Who websites maybe? Possibly, if there are more BBC spoof websites like this, then their articles could be merged into one big BBC spoof websites. Radical, I agree!--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I do see TheDoctor10's point, although I still have my own reservations. If it is decided that it is to be moved, I agree that Websites in Doctor Who is still not the name for it. What we're looking for something functional and that people will look for when they try searching an index. "Websites featured in Doctor Who" (or "seen in Doctor Who") might be a possibility. "Doctor Who websites" has the immediate association with actual fan or official sites. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the word spoof should deal with the last problem, but I quite like Websites featured in Doctor Who, though of course not all the websites were actually featured (GeoComTex wasn't used onscreen, neither was Bad Wolf). Of course, the fan-websites like Flydale North and Cybus Corporation wouldn't fit into the featured title, either. So, overall, I'd be inclined for spoof.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

My problem with "spoof" is that its strict definition involves parody or humour. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...what do you suggest then? I wouldn't have thought that spoof had those connotations, but I'll take your word for it. What was it that you disliked about Websites in Doctor Who (apart from the fact that Flydale North and Cybus wouldn't fit into that category)?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Featured" doesn't quite work either, because the websites themselves were not actually in the program.--Sean|Black 08:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
That's ultimately why I think the title should stay. "Websites in Doctor Who" seems too vague somehow. It needs some kind of verb or adjective in there. "Doctor Who fictional websites"? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

But the websites are NOT fictional - that's the whole flipping point.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh. That's ultimately the same problem I have with Doctor Who missing episodes (that doesn't need a move, but it sounds awkward). I suppose that it's fine as it is.--Sean|Black 08:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Got to go, now. Not back 'til Monday. You know my opinions.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How about Doctor Who tie-in websites? That indicates that they were created in connection with the show, but not necessarily used in it. (By the way, I think we shouldn't rush into this until we have a consensus, preferably one that includes TD10.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the consensus (consensus rocks!), but like I said above: the current title is awkward, but I don't think that there's a better one.--Sean|Black 20:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Tie-in is perfectly good.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Tie-in sounds like the best name suggested so far. PaulHammond 00:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
We need to start fixing the redirects. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, consensus I think. I'll move to Doctor Who tie-in websites.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 14:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood

I've just looked at the Torchwood sites, and my cache reports the DNS server doesn't have any records for these sites. Jashank 10:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

WHOIS records for torchwood.co.uk[2] and torchwood.net[3]. Both registered to the BBC. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If you have a UNIX system, try this at a shell prompt: dig www.torchwood.net any or dig www.torchwood.org.uk any. Apparently, the name server (DNS servers) replies that there aren't any DNS records::Jashank 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's because the servers aren't set up yet. The domain names are reserved, though. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
But, there has to be there. If it's registered with WHOIS, shouldn't it have the DNS records? Even a name server isn't there. If the BBC had more sense, they'd wire up a nameserver! -- Jashank 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying the WHOIS records are bogus? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Khaosworks, watch it please. You're breaking policy you advocate, here and below!--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Please show me how a query for clarification is breaking WP:CIV. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Invasion header

I understand where TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs) is coming from with this, but it just seems a bit silly to have this entire subheader devoted to one website. I'd rather it just go back to Series Two, even if it's technically inaccurate. Any other opinions? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like more opinions on this, please. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You could always be patient. The fact is, it's not series two. So why head it as that? For that matter, why not change the title of the article to "Why a squid doesn't eat lychees"?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a Christmas Specials section? That would be better. Microchip08 16:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leamington Spa lifeboat museum

I wonder which episode this relates to, as Leamington Spa is possibly the most inland location in Britain! Tim (meep) 12:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the museum supposedly contains assorted alien artifacts (including a Sycorax) I assume it's actually a front for either UNIT or Torchwood. Daibhid C 12:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Millingdale's Ice Cream

I'm unsure of how definite this is, but the "Doctor Who Preview" (a montage of "Next Time" clips) which loops constantly on BBC Three BBCi does feature, among other clips from episodes 2-5, a clip of Rose wearing an ice-cream shop style apron running after the Doctor, aparrantly as a part of either of the Cyberman episodes. But is this too speculative to add to the article? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit too tentative yet, I think. You may be right, but let's just wait and see. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheapserve

Should the Cheapserve pages have their own section? Cheapserve itself isn't actually a Doctor Who tie-in per se, having been created for Jamie Kane by the BBC, and the pages themselves are virtually devoid of content. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Cheapserve is ok, but [4] and [5] (not forgetting the vital extra slash) and [6]. Although, was it created for JK? Or was it created for general Geocities-style spoof websites? Are Doctor Who and Jamie Kane the only BBC spoof website sources? --Quentin Smith 13:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If you sneak a look at the page source for http://cheapserve.co.uk/, it reads "This is a fictional site, created for a BBCi game called Jamie Kane. In the game users have to discover clues hidden in various ficitional business sites. If you would like more information on the game please go to www.bbc.co.uk/jamiekane", so I suppose it must have originally been created for it. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
l

[edit] Split?

Ok, we're less than half way through series two now, and the page is already ridiculously long. Why not split it into production blocks or series-es? Especially when S3 comes along, there'll be many more.--Keycard (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If the page reaches 32k before the end of the series, perhaps they should be split into Doctor Who series one tie-in websites and Doctor Who series two tie-in websites. Alternatively, as some sites (such as the large block from Rise of the Cybermen) are interlinked, perhaps these should have their own article (something along the lines of Rise of the Cybermen alternate reality game). smurrayinchester (User), (Talk) 10:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Electromatics

Sorry, but can I just ask - where did the serial number for the MediaPlay radio come from? I mean, I've searched the IE website top to bottom, and can't find it. Please can someone tell me where it is? NP Chilla 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to the MediaPlay page and say "Hello", followed by "Product code". The reply then includes the code. smurrayinchester (User), (Talk) 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much - I am forever in your debt!! NP Chilla 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've found another!

www.leamingtonspalifeboatmuseum.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin Smith (talk • contribs)

Yes, we already know! It's on the page.--Keycard (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magpie Archive

I'm not sure if this counts; It's at http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/games/game7/index.shtml which doesn't seem to be in the same spirit as the others... Daibhid C 19:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Someone's added it, which is fine with me. Daibhid C 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it a 'tie in website' as it's entirely within the bbc.co.uk site. --LukeSurl 15:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaPlay Gone?

Has anybody else noticed the fact that the MediaPlay link no longer leads to an IM Chatbot, or is this just me that it's behaving this way for?

Will 19:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Still works for me. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impossible Planet Game

Is it just me, or hasn't defending the earth been updated for the impossible planet? There is a game on the BBC Doctor Who website for flight simulation. It isn't a separate website in its own right, but the Wire one was added so should this be too?OSmeone 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Defending The Earth as having been updated either. ...Nor can I do that flight simulator game. Well, practice makes perfect, I guess.
  • By the way, the first level never ends if that's where you're stuck. LukeSurl 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that. I'm just poor at it in general. Now I need to remember the combination of right-click and Play that I used to get access to the unlockable modules without having met the requirements...
I could see the case for the Magpie Archive, because it was linked from Mickey's site, and it sort of made sense within the fiction for it to be at www.bbc.co.uk (although, admittedly, not /doctorwho/games). The flight simulator I'm a lot less sure about, which is making me question the Wire game again. After all, no-one's proposed Slitheen Surfer should be here 8-)! Daibhid C 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As something linked to from Mickey's site, something involved with defending the world, Magpie should be included. The simulator shouldn't, because it ain't.--Keycard (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Torchwood

[7] is now up and running. Should it be added?--Keycard (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It does still appear to be a holding page; the flash movie is called "holding.swf". smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British spelling

Both "personalized" and "personalised" are British spellings. They are two differnt spellings of the same word.13756 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

British usually tends to use "ise" instead of "ize" for verbs. For this applied to personalise, see here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I am sorry for the use of the 'z', but your Edit summary suggested that the spelling was wrong, which it wasn't.13756 16:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My only excuse is that I was trying to be concise. Sorry if that was misconstrued. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] torchwoodinstitute.org

It's a fan website, registered to Ian Fraser, St. Crispin's Road, Stonehaven.--Keycard (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viral marketing

Could someone please explain how the Doctor Who tie-in websites are viral marketing? They are just games for fans of the series to play after each episode, so I don't understand how this could be any type of marketing, unless it is counting things such as International Electromatics products, and Cybus ear-pods, which are just fictional. RedvBlue 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's viral marketing for the programme itself. People play the games, then tell people that the show has websites that have games, people get intrigued, look at the sites, then watch the programme... it doesn't necessarily have to work linearly. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geocomtex image

I need to draw folks attention to the Geocomtex image. The person who uploaded it (who I just blocked for vandalising several articles) did not include any licensing information, and as such the image was actually tagged for deletion back in July. The user consequently removed the "no license" tag and obviously the image slipped under the radar. In undoing a number of previous edits by this user the "no license" tag has once again appeared on the image. If someone more well-versed regarding the copyright than I doesn't add proper licensing and fair use rationale, the image may be deleted now that the tag is active again. 23skidoo 13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it in the same way as the other tie-in website screenshots. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Torchwood - BBC Site

Am I imagining it, or is there an input box hidden in the top left (but below the BBC Nav Bar) for the BBC version of the Torchwood website? (The one at http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood ) -I click on it, and it gives me a seclection of numbers of which to choose. So far I can't find the "right" ones, if there are any. -Any clues on this?

-It only seems to give me the list in FireFox, incidentally, but I know for sure that none of them are numbers I have used in other sites, so it's not a normal autocomplete form. At least I don't think so...The_B 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: It appears clicking on each of the numbers gives the following URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/torchwood/index.shtml?passcode=954158&submit=submit&submitted=true - obviously this is intentional. However, so far none of the combinations seem to work, unless I've missed something? The_B 01:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
-Aha! Putting in the date of broadcast 221006 gives you a video! May be worth checking out. The_B 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] torchwood.org.uk

Is this site situated correctly in the series 2 section - it appears to be a tie-in site for torchwood (not Doctor who), so where should it be situated? --Warlorddagaz 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Doctor Who, as an article title, arguably encompasses DW spin-offs like Torchwood, but it shouldn't be in the Series 2 category, but rather in a Torchwood category (although it's the only one so far, and there's no indication there'll be more, to my knowledge, so might be best not to specify a series or anything).

[edit] Non-BBC sites

I'm not sure why these merit inclusion in this article. The Cybus Corporation one fooled a lot of people into thinking it was a BBC site, and the others are cute, but not really encyclopedic. I just removed a listing for someone's unfinished Dalek website, and it seems to me that this section is just going to attract more non-notable sites. Anyone object to the section's removal? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that this has been up almost all year, and No one's objected I've removed the section. --OZOO (What?) 11:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Director-General's Comments

Anybody else think comments by Mark Thompson are relevant here? It would seem to confirm the relevance of this page:

But it's incredibly important that we don't define "value" solely around productivity or cost-cutting. One of the fundamental lessons we learned from Creative Future was the value you can grow, the audiences you can build, when you think about projects not just in terms of single linear broadcast windows but across different platforms and media.

It will be much harder to justify very high budgets for content that only gets a single outing on a linear channel. But that's no longer the right way to think about content commissioning. In future major projects should extend not just across TV, the web, radio, and mobile but through multiple windows across time and across different business models.

So: Russell T Davies, Julie Gardner and BBC Wales build a brilliant sci-fi production factory to deliver Doctor Who. And when I say "factory" I don't just mean physical production, I mean ideas, development, brilliant scripts, design as well. A complete creative operation.

The factory of course makes even better creative and economic sense when you add Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures. Doctor Who plays out across BBC and UKTV channels. The Torchwood website is not just commissioned on day one but is out there before the TV premiere. There's a coherent plan in place for the whole audience relationship with the content almost from the start.

Now clearly this kind of 360 degree exploitation could be creatively limiting or tawdry. Commercial priorities could distort the original commissioning intention. But it really hasn't been in this case and that's because we've had totally committed creative leaders at the centre of decision-making at every stage of the process. You'd have to talk to them directly to hear how they've found it, but my sense is that the sheer scale of the possibilities, the potential to link different titles and different platforms has been creatively inspiring and liberating.

Whole thing here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_summit.shtml (via OG News section)

81.96.66.164 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Series Three sites

We already have several sites listed as tie-in sites for Series Three, but it's not clear to me that any of them are BBC sites. The Martha Jones page is clearly written by someone who saw Smith and Jones in advance, but that doesn't necessarily make it official. LazLabs and Vote Saxon show no clear signs of insider knowledge (yet). I think that until we have direct evidence that any of these is an official BBC site (e.g., a link from the BBC website, or a BBC disclaimer as was usual for the previous tie-in sites), we should only list them under Non-BBC websites, or at least make their uncertain status clear in some other way. EALacey 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Vote Saxon site seems unlikely to be run by the BBC because it uses the free Joomla software. I would imagine the BBC would use their own software. Also the LazLabs link suggests that site is not by the BBC either.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[8] LazLabs is registered to Chris Tate, PO Box 447, Herndon, VA, 20172, United States. And [9] Vote Saxon is registered by Peter Ould who is clearly a fan. [10]. For these reasons I am going to remove both of these sites although the LazLabs site is less certain to be a 'fake'. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed VoteSaxon had ads - definately not BBC created! -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The LazLabs site, as you've mentioned, is registered to Chris Tate. The [11] unofficial Cybus Corporation site is also [12] registered to a Chris Tate. Perhaps they're the same person, meaning LazLabs is unofficial? Digby Tantrum 09:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Freema Agyeman.com claims that a BBC representative confirmed the Martha Jones MySpace is official. Digby Tantrum 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Saxon

That section needs to be removed, since the Myspace is probably unofficial. If it's staying, it needs to be made much more grammatical.--Rambutan (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The differences between Vote Saxon the official Martha Jones Myspace (comments allowed, advertising carried) more than suggest it's unofficial. I doubt it deserves more than a quick mention in Vote Saxon, if even that much. I mean, it's not like there's any onus to list every fansite out there. Digby Tantrum 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 42

Could the person please stop removing my edit

I'm trying to list a website tie in and you mark it as vandalism?

Anyway the password on the page are. If someone wants to format something better

"SAXON", "Saxon", "saxon", "doctor", "DOCTOR", "Doctor", "who", "WHO", "Who", "martha", "MARTHA", "Martha", "tardis", "TARDIS", "Tardis", "42"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.238.225 (talk • contribs)

Nobody said it was vandalism. It's just that the website you listed was the main BBC website for the series, not one like the others on this page.--Rambutan (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Series Three Website

Someone should point out that the Martha Jones Myspace makes no sense because by working out dates given in the episodes she doesn't actually meet the Doctor until 2008, every episode set in Rose's/Martha's present day is at least a year ahead of us, since the episode Aliens of London.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.37.238 (talk • contribs)

Sigh, it does make sense, the dates are automated and the Beeb has no control over them.--Rambutan (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but what I'm saying is why is the BBC making a website that can't even exist yet? Why are they pretending it's the real MySpace of Martha Jones when it can't be from a story point of view. I know they have no control over the dates but this still makes no sense for them to do. 86.130.37.238 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If they wish to make a Myspace page for her, that is their decision. The dates are outside of their control. Anyway, this is nothing to do with what should go in the article.--Rambutan (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This still can fit into logical sense. Think about the mobile the doctor gives Rose in End of the world. This manages to connect to the 'now' despite what time she's in. I assume martha got one, and she's probably posting like that. It makes perfectly logical sense like that. 202.137.73.109 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It could go in under the canonicity of the websites. (86.130.37.238 08:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

No it couldn't because it's not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability.--Rambutan (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 23-6-801

All the mentions of this in the article direct to a page that doesn't mention them. VaughnJess 12:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that page previously mentioned recurring themes and phrases from the new series, and was expanded to include the old series, and 23-6-801 didn't make the cut after that. Given that the numbers are a recurring in-joke, I'd have thought they deserved a mention somewhere, though. 86.149.123.70 11:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dailyexamineronline.co.uk

While this seems to be a fan website, It was seen in the episode The Sound of drums. When Jack checks the video report. Should this be included? 202.137.73.109 13:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really; it is a fan site.--Porcupine (prickle me!) 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what relevance that site has to Doctor Who. It looks to be just a plug for a podcast. --OZOO (What?) 16:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's a fan site, but it does show up in the episode, so should it get a side mention? 202.137.73.109 13:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, including that blantant plug would definately constitute external link spam. --OZOO (What?) 16:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A complete plug, somthing that makes me frutstrated and makes me never want to listen to your podcast.--Wiggstar69 16:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Guinevere memorial.jpg

Image:Guinevere memorial.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Henrik online.png

Image:Henrik online.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:International Electromatics.png

Image:International Electromatics.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MediaPlay.png

Image:MediaPlay.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cybus Fitness.png

Image:Cybus Fitness.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cybusindustries.png

Image:Cybusindustries.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cheapserve.JPG

Image:Cheapserve.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Leamington spa lifeboat museum.jpg

Image:Leamington spa lifeboat museum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Defending the earth Certificate.png

Image:Defending the earth Certificate.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan-websites

I think we need to discuss the fansites (or "non-BBC sites") on this article. I feel they should be removed as they constitute poorly-disgused Link spam. What does anyone else think? --OZOO 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As it's been a week and noone else has commented, I'm being bold and removing them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by OZOO (talk • contribs)
If you want to keep them, please discuss here. As there have been no discussions and the links are spam, I will continue to remove them. --OZOO 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] series 4

Is there no websites at all for season 4? None are listed. Digifiend (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A recent Guardian article speculating on clues in series 4 said that a website called VanishingBees.com was a fake, but I'm pretty sure it's actually legit; I checked, and it's registered to someone in California. The writer didn't appear to know that the bees genuinely are disappearing in real life (although it's a clue in the show as well). 86.136.156.205 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)