Talk:Doctor Who Restoration Team

This article was nominated for deletion on October 31, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Low‑importance

	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.Doctor WhoWikipedia:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled

somebody keeps deleting names of valid members...

Because they aren't valid members - as well you know. Marwood 10:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read on the net that those 2 had found lost/wiped episodes and returned them to the Restoration Team

One thing, they haven't. Secondly, even if they have - that doesn't make them members of the team. Marwood 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about copy editing - I was just trying to expand it and couldn't think of better wasys to put ceratin things. I haven't been on wikipedia very long so I guess I'm not that experienced. Thanks for wikifying it though :).

--bjwebb 16:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. I've also learnt the intricacies of Wikipedia and its style through others' correcting of my writing, and I never meant it in a negative way! Edit on! Dewet 17:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link to list of edits

I support the anonymous editor who reverted the removal of the link to the list of edits. The wiki in question is not open, but instead is a collaborative effort by members of the forum in question. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also support their vandalism to the article? From what I can gather, anyone can sign up to that site and then edit the associated wiki, which doesn't exactly make it much different to one which non-registered users can edit. There is no evidence that the forum members have any expertise which puts them in the category of "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Indeed, judging by the forum threads, some members of that wiki indulge in unsupported speculation and borderline libel; given that this article covers information about the activities of living people, there are clear BLP issues. It's certainly not the kind of site Wikipedia ought to be supporting by linking to it. The Parting Glass (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you have a conflict of interest regarding this site, please do declare it now. The Parting Glass (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an open wiki, and what the contributors may or may not have said elsewhere is totally irrelevant. The content of the article is entirely factual and relevant.

And perhaps you'd care to declare your links, if any, to the RT?

Guyal of Sfere (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None at all, Pex(?). Although I can't speak for any other editors. The Parting Glass (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the content of the wiki (which I haven't read) is factual or not is irrelevant. The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you can't verify with reliable sources then, true or not, it's not welcome in Wikipedia. Marwood (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion?

Right, this could go back and forth ad nauseam. Should we go to Wikipedia:Third opinion on this? The Parting Glass (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

That would be acceptable to me certainly. I don't represent any other editors anonymous or otherwise. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it.[1] If there's anything you think ought to be added, feel free to expand the entry (although actual discussion of pros and cons should remain here). The Parting Glass (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My two penny'th...

There seem to be two aspects to this, firstly the link to the "List of changes and modifications made to Doctor Who serials on DVD," and secondly the supposed "controversy" relating to Peter Finklestone. The latter I removed myself in November last year because - as stated - it doesn't actually have anything to do with the work of the RT. The list, on the other hand, does have a degree of merit in and of itself, but it is linked with a forum that is very critical of the RT, which questions the motivation behind it (the list). It seems that both matters are being used collectively as sticks to beat the RT with. The issue of changes made by the RT to certain DVD releases is certainly an important one, but I think we should find a more neutral source to cite.

As to declaring interests, I "vaguely know" two members of the RT (neither of whom are Finklestone), although I haven't seen them "in real life" for around ten years, and have only very sporadic online contact with either. I could probably walk past them in the street without recognising them. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would your opinion be if the exact same list of edits and comments was sited somewhere else? I don't see how it can be regarded as biased in itself (and I was not a contributor). Indeed the numerous references in it to 'cleanup' and 'restoration' could be regarded as pro-RT. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would turn that around with a more extreme but similar scenario: would we link to a list of statistics of deaths at Nazi concentration camps on a neo-Nazi website, even if it was factually correct? Context is everything. If the same information exists on a more neutral site, we can link to that, but as Marwood notes above, if the information doesn't exist anywhere else, we can't verify it and so can't include it. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Athaenara delisted our request for a third opinion with the edit summary "Nick Cooper gave 3rd opinion on Talk:Doctor Who Restoration Team#Link to list of edits".[2] Technically, NC doesn't count as a neutral party because he's edited the article previously, but we can't relist it at that page because there are way more than two editors involved now. Do the various editors involved here accept that there is a consensus not to include this link, or do we have to start looking for outside commentary again? The Parting Glass (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what Nick's getting at, but his analogy only really works if the neo-Nazi website is the only source of concentration camp death statistics, which of course it wouldn't be. The facts in the wiki article can be verified by anyone who compares the VHS and DVD versions. I also think that weight should be given to the fact that the link was on this page for months without any complaint, only to be suddenly deleted as soon as it was mentioned on the Anorak Zone forum: that doesn't suggest to me that objective consideration was really the reason for removing it.

I think the link should be restored, or the 'disputed' notice retained. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That particular tag is for stuff listed at WP:Third opinion. If we're still in dispute, then WP:Dispute resolution's suggested options include:

Asking for input at the talk page of a relevant policy, which I guess would be WP:External links.
Opening a WP:Request for comment on the issue.

– The Parting Glass 10:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Request for comment would be the appropriate action. Please don't keep on editing my talk posts. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I indented your comment for ease of reading (see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout). Perhaps you'll handle this yourself from now on? – The Parting Glass 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this was the main article, that would be quite proper. Discussion pages on the other hand are quite another matter. No face-to-face discussion could proceed if the participants kept 'correcting' each other's contributions. Guyal of Sfere (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* Mountain-molehill. Anyhow, the RFC section has been started and we now await a bot to complete its listing. – The Parting Glass 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External link to wiki

The link in question is [3]. The wiki has 222 total users, the page has 4 unique contributors. This would probably fail to meet the criteria at WP:EL. However I think the material is relevant and useful, and probably verifiable given VHS/DVD inspection and whatever the source for "Restoration Notes" is. Perhaps move the material to Wikipedia, where it can be judged on it's own worth rather than by its location? I direct import would likely be deleted, work should be put in to identify the sources and properly cite the material. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the article summary a word for word copyvio from the RT website? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optional CGI

Worth mentioning the optional CGI effects replacement on some DVDs?

Peter

Why are both Finklestone and Crocker listed as names? Surely it should be one or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.105.185 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since lots of people with widely different last names have the first name Peter it is hard to decipher what you are asking about. MarnetteD | Talk 00:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.105.185 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source for that? DonQuixote (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I was under the impression it was common knowledge?!? He changed his name, moved to Ruislip, and is now something in the music biz 46.64.69.255 (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can prove otherwise by, amongst other things, citing a reliable source, you're wrong on all accounts. DonQuixote (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who Restoration Team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205003750/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/KeyToTime.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/KeyToTime.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

? A help request is open: goes to a 504 message. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20050901095113/http://www.restoration-team.co.uk/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]