Talk:Doctor Who

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

Had a discussion with User:LizBee about the positioning of the subpages on this article - formerly we'd set it up as /2005 and /Classic, but LizBee suggested that it was an inaccurate representation of a division within the fandom that didn't exist. Following some further discussion, we compromised on creating different kinds of subpages to organise the massiveness of the Who fandom - /Online and /Offline to name a couple. Within both of those are explorations of both 2005 & Classic Who. The new mode of subpaging this fandom ought to provide more flexibility to Who fans with different experiences. --Hope 08:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I put some info about the Scarf and the Adipose on this page--would like some images to go with them, if that's doable. But...given the structure of these pages--online vs. offline as detailed above, should that section go on the online fandom page? Or is it an offline activity only discussed online?--facetofcathy 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that the main page is defining the offline fandom as the physical manifestations of the fandom, I would assume all of the craft info (and probably a chunk of the art) would go there. It's an interesting division--I'm more of a timeline girl, myself. Is the watercolor portrait of 10 that you did an offline part of the fandom? But if you scanned it in and posted it to a community, is it online now?

Following this along, though, I suppose conventions are offline? Vids are online? Fanfic and Fanzines have their own subpages, which is good, because they could go either way. Cin 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Vids are online unless they're offline, or sometimes both; likewise art. *wry grin* Maybe we just need to stub out Doctor Who/Fan Videos (I'd go with Vids or Fanvids, but I'm not sure if there were ever fan films for Doctor Who, which would be a different kettle of video fish) and Doctor Who/Fanart? I can understand why the existing separation was made, but it makes it odd trying to figure out where to fit in the various fanworks, not to mention things like fanon, some of which undoubtedly got created well before the term "fanon" was invented. And things like the numbering of the doctors started offline and carried smoothly into online, then a decade later completely shifted with the new series and the influx of new fans. *hands* Almost half a century of fandom, so complicated! --Arduinna 04:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There are similar question with the LOTR pages as well. I seems like there is a hesitation to make the split into fans focused on transformative works and fans focused on other things. And yet for some of these old fandoms is that not a more genuine split? Given the fact that the main online forum for discussion rather than fanworks is defunct, are we likely to have much about fannish activity online that isn't about fanworks? --facetofcathy 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Which forum is defunct? (I've never been in the fandom per se, so am clueless about what the main ones were.) ETA: annnd never mind, I just saw the info about Outpost Gallifrey going down on the online-fandom page. I remember hearing that last year, but I'd forgotten. *facepalm* The one I knew about was rec.arts.drwho, which I just checked, and it looks like it's still going strong; I did an incredibly rough count back about a week to April 16, and came up with ~500 messages posted during that time. From there I bounced over to the Gallifrey One forums and created an account, and they look active as well (harder to count messages there, though); likewise for the forums at Doctor Who Online, where there are already 512 topics with a combined 19,709 posts just for the currently airing season. So I think the discussion end of the fandom is still pretty healthy, just not in places where LJ fandom generally looks. Which has cheered me up immensely - I hated to think that that side of the fandom had faded away! \o/ --Arduinna 02:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Historical records of discussions are gone though, but regardless, I don't expect much to get written about that, which is very unfortunate. I'd love to be proved wrong.--facetofcathy 02:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's sadly true across the board - so many conversations lost! --Arduinna 03:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

bechdel test complaint

Someone on FFA is complaining about bias in the section Doctor_Who#Sexism_of_NewWho: [1]--aethel (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Found the article and the other similar points via Tumblr I believe - it's been a while so I don't remember, so maybe it might be a little bias, but I don't know since I never saw a counter-tumblr stating otherwise. So it might need to be rewritten, but clearly some people feel differently about Moffat & Davies arcs on NewWho.--Harpie (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)