Forum:David Yates movie

I wanted to get a second opinion first, but it seems to me we should have a page for the new feature film.

I know that there are not many details yet, but if I remember correctly, unlike individual episodes only having pages after their first transmission, the pages for each new series of Doctor Who/Torchwood/SJA were added as soon as the new series was confirmed, with new details added as they were released. I believe the new film should be treated in this way, (novels/audio adventure pages are also added before their commerical release) and it is fair to say that this new film has indeed been confirmed (it hasn't been denied, and even Moffat is discussing it in terms of what 'will' happen, not 'if'). Geek Mythology ☎  11:23, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Also, in terms of the page title, structure etc, I would propose a similar model to http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Untitled_Star_Trek_sequel Geek Mythology ☎  11:27, July 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * What new film?
 * The only reporting I've seen is David Yates shooting his mouth off and Moff and the BBC being vague about it.
 * There appears to be overwhelmingly more speculation than any facts. --Tangerineduel / talk 12:21, July 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * There definitely is a film in development, but lots of movies go into development and never come out. (See .) I agree that there isn't really enough solid material to justify a page yet. At best the article would be a record of press mentions, almost none of which will have any real bearing on the film if and when it actually appears.


 * My leaning is to that we shouldn't create a page until the film project is actually greenlit and enters pre-production proper. But then again, it's possible that we'll get more solid information as the development process proceeds (e.g. a writer being hired, further discussions of how it will fit with the TV series, etc.). What do others think? —Josiah Rowe ☎  02:37, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * My preference would be to wait for a press release from the BBC, and also not rely on something on like an article in DWM.
 * During the Wilderness years there were several films in development that cropped up in DWM that came to nothing.
 * Any information between now and an official statement from the BBC I think can be added to the Doctor Who article under the feature films heading. --Tangerineduel / talk 05:06, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, we'll leave it for now. Geek Mythology ☎  09:17, July 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, an article on this Yates movie would be in violation of our spoiler policy, which makes no provisions whatsoever for feature films. Therefore, an article on, say, Doctor Who (2014), or whatever, is not exempt from the policy, which requires a story to actually be released before an article can be put up.   13:48: Tue 24 Jul 2012

As much as the spoiler policy has no provisions for feature films, this is due to it not having been an issue before. If there is an official announcement from the BBC, then surely provisions should have to be made, rather than it just ignored.

I am assuming that it would be in the same style as a series page, rather than that of a TV episode, in that production info (cast, crew, etc) would be added, but not any regarding story until it's actual release (such as the Star Trek example I mentioned earlier, a long page on which the only plot info is: "At the 2011 Los Angeles Times Hero Complex Film Festival, Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof confirmed the film would deal with the "ripple effect" of Vulcan's destruction. They said between films the crew would've had a few more adventures, but they are still not fully familiar with each other. They added that the mirror universe would not be involved"

This is also similar to novel, and audio adventures, which have quote from back covers, cast lists etc, but again. Surely just ommiting story info would not mean ommiting a whole page?Geek Mythology ☎  14:05, July 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, actually, films were deliberately left undiscussed at tardis:spoiler policy precisely because there's no reason to exempt them. Films are a single story, and therefore more akin to episodes, not series. Moreover, it's not like the Yates concept is the first Doctor Who movie idea to ever be floated to the public.  And we know how all those have turned out.  At this point, there's just as much chance that an article about the "Yates thing" will end up being about an unproduced concept as an actual, released story.  I'd therefore take strong exception to your underlying assumptions. We don't have pages for future episodes, so there's no reason to have pages for future films.   22:42: Tue 24 Jul 2012

Ok, I get that there shouldn't be a page at the moment (possibly ever), but I have to admit I still don't understand why a film page (if it gets made) would have to wait until it's actually released. Every single story, be it novel, audio, or television episode is given space for production info (cast, crew, authors, book cover blurbs etc) prior to it's release, it just happens that for TV, this is on the series page, not episodes.

Therefore, I still do not see why, in principle, after any film project has been officially announced and moves from pre-production to production (ie, actually being filmed), there would be no placeto do the same.Geek Mythology ☎  22:52, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "just happen" that we allow series pages to have information about the upcoming series. It was actually determined that this compromise be allowed so that people who were anxious to include all the late-breaking rumors had a place to play.  And I don't say "play" pejoratively.  I mean that the series pages, because they admit so much rumor and speculation, are constantly changing.  They're very much sand castles, rearranged every time the tide roles in.  By allowing spoilers only on series pages, users who want to avoid spoilers can do so easily by simply not going to the series page.


 * See, this isn't some arbitrary rule. It's an effort at editor and reader retention, because we had a spell during series 5 where we lost people due to the fact that the spoilers were absolutely uncontrolled.  This policy is thus a balanced compromise that allows people one page and one page only on which they may collect, mold and refactor the latest rumors to their hearts' content.


 * There's little need for such a page about anything else. There certainly shouldn't be pages for individual stories prior to their release. If you're finding such pages, you should report it to an admin. For instance, I know that some people got really enthusiastic with the Tom Baker Big Finish material prior to its release, but these were swiftly "administratively blanked" with, which covered up the offending material and placed it into Category:Pages that violate spoiler policy.  Equally, there was a determined effort to keep Assimilation2 from being available for editing prior to its actual drop date, as well as Doctor Who: Worlds in Time, the various bits of Doctor Who: The Adventure Games and Doctor Who: The Eternity Clock.  It may be that we have occasionally let a few things slip by, but it's a truism of wiki administration that the presence of a policy violation doesn't invalidate the policy itself.  We're a relatively small admin staff tying to police a relatively large and active editing population covering a fairly vast fictional franchise.  Some things are going to slip through the cracks.


 * I'd also dispute your notion that we need to have a page up before a story is released in order to collect the production information. As the person who's entered the production information for most episodes of recent Doctor Who and Torchwood, I can tell you that it's entirely possible to have the entire cast and crew list up within an hour, or at most a day, of first broadcast.  And it's better to go off the actual credits seen on screen rather than those reported to the press or, worse, to IMDb.  How can anyone actually know the full credits, anyway, until the episode has been broadcast, the book published, or the audio released?


 * As Tangerineduel likes to say, we're not a news service. It's not our job to be there first. It's our job to be there accurately.  01:29: Wed 25 Jul 2012