text:
Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 2

Featured article
This page is now a featured article. Congratulations to all my fellow editors who've put time on this page in the last year or so to make it what it is, and kudos all around for all the good work. Now let's see if we can't get the other pages up to speed... -khaosworks 15:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that a "little" topic like this required about 650 edits over more than 3 years before making it to featured status. Rmhermen 17:11, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Part of it is that when I first came across the article, it was desperately in need of copyediting. Doctor Who is a huge project, and many parts - especially the story synopses - are still in disarray. As far as the main article was concerned, there were no references, one picture, trivial information, and organizationally it was a mess. Once it was rewritten, and people started chiming in, spinning off sections into their own articles, refining it... all this was over the course of the last ten months, so that's a better periodization for its improvement. -khaosworks 17:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well done to all involved. I like to think I managed to help a couple of times along the way. Now, who's going to suggest it for front page featuring? :-) Angmering 17:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Somebody did, because now it's on the front page. Hooray! Gwimpey 01:48, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Viewership: the Netherlands
I remember this when I was young in the Netherlands. Shouldn't it be mentioned that it used to be shown in the Netherlands? Andries 11:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't it be a bit silly to reel off a list of countries this programme has been shown in ; there are dozens of such countries... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Was it in English or dubbed? I'd think there would be an ineterest in a list of foreign languages the show has been dubbed in... And information about the actors who performed the dubbed voices. Ravenswood 18:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BBC one
Is it going to be only avaible on bbc one ? I really would like to see the new episodes here in US.
 * This is not a place to talk about Doctor Who. It's a place to talk about the Doctor Who article on Wikipedia.  --Doradus 03:12, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * But as you asked here anyway - yes it will be shown in the US. No news on the station as of yet, but it will be a cable network of some sort, if the worst comes to the worst at least BBC America will show it for you, but it *should* get on a bigger station than that. The series has already been pre-sold to Prime TV in New Zealand and CBC Television in Canada. Angmering 10:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is speculation as no announcement has been made of a U.S. broadcaster yet and the BBC won't be drawn on who it is negotiating with. Wait and see.David Farmbrough

Dalek ranks
Have a look at Dalek ranks. I've tried a cleanup, but the state of it is quite dire, and desperately needs copyediting and to sort out all the bad information from the good. Maybe it should be redirected to "Dalek models" or something. Suggestions and thoughts? -khaosworks 09:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think the information in it needs to be incorporated into the main Dalek article PaulHammond 16:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The main Dalek article is already 27,688 bytes, and the Dalek ranks article is 6,738 bytes. Splicing them together would push the Dalek article right up to the 32 kilobyte recommended size limit where it becomes advisable to split the article up. I think the current division is fine, IMO. Bryan 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right. I've read the main Dalek article, and I think the stuff about different types of Dalek would be too much of a tangent from what is already there.  The main article is good.  PaulHammond 15:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the Dalek ranks information is way too specific, and on a first read there seemed to be lots of errors... I think it would suffice to cut the article down to a short paragraph or even a couple of sentences, and then include that in the main Dalek article. -Guybrush 02:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * What sorts of errors? I think cutting the current rank article down to a paragraph would eliminate a lot of information. What's the problem with keeping it separate? Wikipedia isn't paper, we can afford to be highly detailed on what would otherwise be "niche" subjects. Bryan 04:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * For a start, we can get rid of Dalek Warrior and Dalek Drone - there's never been any such classification on screen (same reason I got rid of Dalek Lieutenant). --khaosworks 04:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we should add a "Plain 'ol" Dalek classification when we do, to allow the other types to be contrasted against it. Perhaps "Renegade Dalek"? Bryan 04:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category: Doctor Who
I'm thinking of creating a new sub-category: Doctor Who actors, to organize it a bit more. Maybe even add Doctor Who production team (or someone can come up with a better name). Any thoughts? Unnecessary? -khaosworks 16:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Not sure about the whole production team but some of the more prolific writers, such as Terry Nation, probably merit their own sub-category.--TylerD 17:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have no idea if you're still considering it, but it definitely seems worthwhile. There's not too much info on the production team(s) outside of the original lineup and the new series (mentioned in the history summary). I would suggest a new sub-category, but it could probably also be appended to a new paragraph in the history section.... – Seancdaug 09:16, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Since December, we've added Category: Doctor Who people, with associated sub-categories. Have a look. -khaosworks 09:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, I see. Nice. Has anyone brought up the idea of doing a list page (I'm specifically thinking of script editors and producers, here)? A chronological list, I mean? – Seancdaug 16:00, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't think so. I can see it as a link off of History of Doctor Who. --khaosworks 20:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing episodes
This section has grown to a respectable size, I think, that it can be spun off into its own article (with a summary and link like the History and The Doctor sections off the main page). Information should be merged with List of incomplete Doctor Who serials as well. Anyone want to do this? -khaosworks 08:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I was moderately surprised to find that there doesn't seem to be any information on John Cura and/or telesnaps on Wikipedia. As a subject, it's probably important enough to have its own article, and my brief (and woefully incomplete) summary can be removed once it has one. I can cobble something together, if everyone agrees it would be worthwhile.... – Seancdaug 08:46, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly is worthwhile, but I'm not sure Cura deserves an article on his own - I'd have to see. As it is, I think that putting it all under the umbrella of a Missing Episodes article would be a good start. Anyone else have any comments? -khaosworks 09:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding Cura, the man is nothing if not prolific. Telesnaps aren't an exclusively DW-related phenomenon, and there have been a variety of scholarly and semi-scholarly writings on his work. If he did have an article of his own, it most likely wouldn't fall directly under the Doctor Who umbrella, but it would certainly be relevant to DW material. In case anyone's interested, there's more info on Cura and telesnaps here (which would be a good source for any prospective article on the man). I'll put something together and make it available under my user pages: if it looks good, it can be moved to its own page. – Seancdaug 09:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Difference between cancellation and hiatus (or lack thereof...)
Khaosworks, I noticed you reverted my edit that removed the "not cancelled outright" line. This line is both incorrect, technically speaking, and misleading in its implications, because, from a production/business standpoint, there is no difference between "cancelling" a series and "declining to produce/air any more of a series." Doctor Who was cancelled in 1989, just as it was in 1985 (when, despite the BBC's repeated promises that the show would return, it was still considered "cancelled"). I understand your desire to clarify that the BBC intended to find an outside production house to continue to the show, but that information is portrayed clearly in the sentences following the line in question, as well as before, with the use of the word "suspension." At best, the line is redundant, at worst, it's flatly misleading and gives a wrong impression of how the industry works. – Seancdaug 02:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * There is a difference. When a show is cancelled, that's pretty much it - there is no interest in producing a new one. BBC continued to source for ways to bring it back pretty much continually through the 1990s and even after that. Maybe Angmering might want to take this one. -khaosworks 05:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * But that's not a difference. I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but it has no basis in production reality. A program is either under production or its not. It is commissioned on a season-by-season basis, and when there is no intention to make or air a new season, that program is cancelled. It can be "uncancelled" (or, more correctly, revived or renewed) later on, though. Take, as an example, Star Trek: it was inarguably cancelled in 1969, but efforts to revive it, in some form or another, commenced very shortly thereafter. The fact that the BBC was actively seeking to revive the show in some form or another is certainly worthy of note, and for all the reasons you've stated, but to suggest that the show wasn't cancelled is simply not true. The best policy, IMO, is simply to omit the references to cancellation (as my edit did) to avoid any misconceptions, and to simply specify the actions taken by the BBC during and following 1989 to secure the future of the show. – Seancdaug 12:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * We'll try it this way. Just to note that, in future, if there is "talk" about changes, you should not make any edits from the baseline version (i.e., before those edits started) without those issues being resolved first, lest it lead to edit wars. --khaosworks 15:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * It is worth mentioning that the BBC is now stating that the show was cancelled in 1989 David Farmbrough.29 Mar 2005

Removed POV comment
I have removed the following comment, which was made in relation to the 3-5m viewing figures of the later series:

 * Such figures would likely be seen as acceptable in the UK in the current multi-channel digital television age, however.

This comment is inherently POV, and is also almost certainly wrong. Passport to the Sun was dropped for having viewing figures in this range, and that was a relatively cheaply produced low-profile show. If last night's figures for Dr. Who were that low it would be regarded as an unmitigated disaster by the BBC given the ammount of hype surrounding it, let alone the money spent on it. Rje 02:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Viewership
I think it's only reasonable that we mention that Rose was very heavily trailed for several weeks beforehand (even on Radio 4 - they surely didn't trail Noel's House Party, occupant of a comparable slot, on radio 4!). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 02:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original Airing of the 20th Anniversary Special The Five Doctors
I thought that this would be a better place to make this point than throwing an edit into the fine Doctor Who site here at Wikipedia. "The Five Doctors" was actually broadcast on many PBS stations around the US on November 23rd, 1983. I saw it in Denver, Colorado on KRMA. The PBS stations that didn't broadcast it weren't showing the show anyway. It even received a feature article in the TV Guide magazine for that week. In closing I would like to echo what several others on this page have said. There are dozens of websites for this show with lots of information out there. You Wikipedia editors have done a wonderful job in distilling that info into a readable and cogent form. Many Thanks.MarnetteD | (talk) 02:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI, The information on the PBS showing of The Five Doctors is on that page, as well as under the "Viewership" section in this article. -khaosworks 02:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. A perusal of both spots you mentioned showed that they both state that the premiere showing of this episode was in Chicago, as though that was the only station that aired it that night. I was simply pointing out that its original airing reached a much wider audience than just one city. I didn't want to edit out the station in Chicago by replacing it with the phrase "It was aired on PBS stations nationwide", because Chicago was important to Doctor Who fandom at that time. It hosted the wonderful 20th anniversary convention on November 26th and 27th, 1983, that I was lucky enough to attend. I am enjoying reading the many contributions that you have made to the Doctor Who pages, Khaosworks, here at Wikipedia.MarnetteD | (talk) 13:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Eccleston has quit
I've added to the article that Christopher Eccleston has left his role as the Doctor. Apparantly the Beeb are after David Tennant to fill the role, some step from Casanova to the Doctor... Rje 23:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, sheesh. Just two more Doctors to go before we get a series starring the Valeyard. Though I suppose that'd be interesting in its own way. :) Bryan 01:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm still hoping its all just an early April Fool's Joke. But if it is true, at least Eccleston has had a longer on-screen tenure than McGann... maybe they could do books for the 9th Doctor before he met Rose? --Travlr23 04:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Sadly unlikely - Rose hints that it hasn't been that long since the Ninth Doctor's regeneration. No doubt fan disappointment and speculation will run rife. --Guybrush 04:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Considering that each episode doesn't necessarily immediately continue into the next (Rose goes into The End of the World, but after that, we're not sure), you could fit a reasonable number of adventures in there. You could fit Ninth Doctor solo or with other companion adventures in the gap between the time he leaves at the end of Rose and when he returns to pick up Rose again. --khaosworks 04:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, no argument there; there are at least three novels presumably set between episodes of this season. As for the Doctor travelling solo, you're right: there could also be a lot of personal time in his little departure/return sequence at the end of the episode. After all, the Eighth Doctor supposedly spends three years somewhere else while leaving Sam at a Greenpeace rally for a few hours in the novels (during which time he has the adventures in the Radio Times comic strip and, some fans suggest, his travels with Charley from the Big Finish audio adventures). But before he shows up seems unlikely, though of course something must have led him to Earth in the first place... -- Guybrush 14:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Has it actually been established that the t.v. movie is considered canon and that Eccleston is really the 9th and not the 8th doctor? And, of course, it'd take only one episode to change the Doctor's future so the whole valeyard thing changes.  --Yamla 05:20, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

 * As far as Davies is concerned, Eccleston is the Ninth Doctor, and the McGann Doctor has been mentioned in all the publicity material. Definitive enough for me. --khaosworks 05:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually Davies has been even more explicit; he was quoted in DWM as saying that "He's the same man who fought the Drahvins, The Macra, The Axons, The Wirrn, the Terileptils, the Borad, the Bannermen and the Master in San Francisco on New Year's Eve 1999." So yes, he's the official Ninth Doctor. It'll be interesting when we get a statement from him about Eccleston's departure, though... -- Guybrush 14:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Davies also makes his position clear in Queer as folk, where he has one of the characters say "Paul McGann doesn't count". And he has explicitely stated that he did not want to show the doctors regeneration into Eccleston, which allows him to avoid showing who he had regenerated from.

Reason they can't show McGann's history is not dislike, it's money. US Companies own half the rights to the telemovie, and the Beeb don't feel like forking over obscene amounts of money to the corporate yanks for 10 minutes of onscreen time. McGann's appeared in recent Beeb behind-the-scenes stuff(flashes in Doctor Who Confidential) and had at least as much screen time in the pre-series docu-film as Syl McCoy did.

CBC involvement?
I've been wondering about the text at the top of the page, which says that "The series is produced by BBC Wales in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation". I haven't seen this bit of information anywhere else (not even in the history article), and it's not mentioned again here; anyone know where it came from? As far as I can tell it's spurious at best and should probably be deleted. CBC broadcast the programme, but they had no involvement in its production. -- Guybrush 23:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nuh-uh. There *is* some sort of CBC involvement: it's in the end credits and it's also mentioned here. Hig Hertenfleurst 23:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah...cool. Well, this is why I asked. Can't believe I missed that in the end credits. -- Guybrush 02:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well it's not on the end credits in the UK, so that may be a reason if that's where your episodes are coming from! :-) I believe the deal was basically a pre-purchase agreement, when it comes down to it. Certainly they don't have any kind of creative involvement, they just put some money in. Angmering 10:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So does that mean that the CBC note ought to be struck or not? GraemeLeggett 13:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If we're taking a vote, my view is that it should be left in - it may not be in the UK end credits, but the BBC still refers to CBC as its co-production partner in its press releases and such - the first time I noticed this was when the story about where the Rose leak came from broke. "In association with" is suitably vague and it doesn't take much away. If we can pin down exactly what they're doing (financial assistance) then we can make it more specific. --khaosworks 13:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ISTM that the sale to CBC was negotiated after the programme had been made and therefore after it had been financed. I don't think that counts as a co-production...FWIW this will probably come out in the wash in the next few months.--DavidFarmbrough 16:51, 15 Apr 2005 (BST)
 * Well, the deal was announced in August 2004, so they'd only been shooting a month. The BBC almost certainly would have made exactly the same series with or without them by that point anyway, but they were certainly on board early-on. Angmering 18:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CBC deal is a broadcast deal and not a co-production deal. One BBC press release has been identified that refers to a co-production deal and even this is ambiguously worded. The end credits in the UK do not refer to CBC asa co-producer. Neither do CBC have an executive producer working on the programme (which would be standard practice in co-production). The most recent series of Doctor Who has been exclusively produced by BBC Wales. It is entirely credible that an extra credit appears on the Canadian broadcast as part of the deal if sufficient funding had been provided. However, this is not co-production. That is like saying that a creditor for a production should be considered a production partner. This is simply not the case. Many small scale creditors fund film productions, but are not co-producers. If we follow the logic of this argument then all British licence fee payers should be given a credit for co-production.

Opening sentences
Perhaps I'm being a little dim here, but does the broadcast schedule of the new series actually belong in the opening paragraphs? Ought'n it go further down under history (an internal link would suffice to take you direct there)? If a reader wants to see when its on, they can buy the Radio Times/local newspaper. GraemeLeggett 16:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't quite remember when it was inserted but I think it was when the series started. As an overview paragraph, the broadcast times and where it's broadcast is important enough, I think, so people can get a good flavour of what it is from the get go. --khaosworks 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with GraemeLeggett, the broadcast times do not belong in the opening section. Mentioning the boradcast companies is fine though. --Commander Keane 13:04, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I approve of the change to: "It is also known for often having low-budget special effects for most of its history." -- even though this sentence was intended to address the improved special effects in the 2005 series, I do recall that the final season (or two?) with Sylvester McCoy did have vastly improved special effects, when compared to earlier years. Ravenswood 16:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal
Question: If someone types "Doctor Who" into the search box, should they be redirected to Doctor Who or to Wikiportal/Doctor Who? Bluap

Defenitly. It's far more useful and I didn't even know it existed before now. --Jamdav86 17:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not convinced, personally. While the Wikiportal is useful, and very well put together, I worry that we'd be adding a layer of abstraction to the search process that is undesirable. Are there any other examples of redirecting straight to a Wikiportal around here? – Seancdaug 01:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Music in Doctor Who
The dcescription of Doctor Who contains the line, "innovative use of music". There's also been references to the different opening themes used over the years. Somebody (other than me -- sorry!) should write an article about the music in Doctor Who. IMHO. Ravenswood 16:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

'See Also' list
The problem is that if you're looking for, say, a list of Doctor Who villians, it is not clear where one should click (or even if such a thing is available.) Khaosworks removed my note next to the Character List link, claiming it was unnecessary. I feel that it is necessary, since it's not obvious that things such as Villians and Aliens can be found there. Can anyone else propose an alternate solution? Or vote on which existing version is better? Thanks. Ravenswood 18:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

REFERENCE:

Ravenswood version:
 * List of supporting characters in Doctor Who (Includes Companions and other recurring characters, Villians, Alien species, and Characters from Doctor Who spin-offs)

Khaosworks version:
 * List of supporting characters in Doctor Who

 * The comment should be reinstated (or a similar one) or the name of the article should be changed, as one would not automatically think of a villain as a supporting charcater. Tim! (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim and Ravenswood. --bjwebb 14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is, cut it down to simply read "includes companions, villains, aliens and other significant characters". As it is, it's also overlong as a tag line. --khaosworks 01:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "includes villains and aliens", or "includes villains, aliens, etc."? I don't think you need to list them all, simply the things people would not readily associate with "supporting characters". -- Wisq 04:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

The third alternative: Split the article up, and list thusly: I think this makes the contents of both lists pretty clear.
 * List of supporting characters in Doctor Who
 * List of aliens and villians in Doctor Who

If everyone's agreeable to that, I'll make the change in the next few days. Ravenswood 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What's the purpose of the list, as opposed to the use of a Category generated list. GraemeLeggett 20:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Presumably for the extra data like 'with the first doctor', 'seasons 3-4', etc. You'd have to create a lot of categories to accomplish what that page does on a single one.  And most of the list will never change because they're done and over with, so it's mostly an add-only list rather than a large, dynamic, hard-to-manage one.  Just my guess. -- Wisq 21:01, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

 * a list can contain articles which do not yet exist, whereas a category cannot. Tim! (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * RE: "What's the purpose of the list, as opposed to the use of a Category generated list." -- I've always wondered about the opposite: Why do we have Categories, when we could just use lists? Ravenswood 21:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Part of the reason I don't like the idea of splitting it up is firstly, the list isn't that long and secondly, with lists there's a temptation to list and then wikify every minor character that's ever appeared - at least here we're sticking to significant characters, etc. The list of robots already makes me uneasy because of this. Generally, I find lists - unless bounded by their very nature (i.e., like the list of serials/episodes) - encourage stub articles, which then wind up on vfd and can cause headaches and arguments about fancruft, which is why I don't really like them. But on a more practical level, categories can be nested very neatly and cross-referenced between hierarchies of categories much easier than lists can be nested. --khaosworks 21:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * A list can also contain information about characters too minor too warrant their own article... i.e. it is in itself an article about the items in the list Example: Telos Doctor Who novellas is more than just a listTim! (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It can be, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that all too often it isn't, and mostly the non-list bits are barely substantial, Telos being a case in point, and robots being another. Now, while Telos at least has the glimmer of being expanded on to the point of say, the Virgin New Adventures, the scope for writing something similar for "List of alien races" that goes beyond fan trivia is not. --khaosworks 21:50, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right the robot list is not really going anywhere. Well at least it is better than a stub for each of its items. Tim! (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Are we all on board with...

 * List of supporting characters in Doctor Who -- includes companions, villains, aliens, and other significant characters

...? Ravenswood 22:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Can't find a clear consensus here. Everyone has their own idea.  I think that text could be shortened, myself:

 * List of supporting characters in Doctor Who, including villains and aliens
 * -- Wisq 23:18, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

 * I can get behind that. --khaosworks 03:22, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Wisq's suggestion sounds good --bjwebb 15:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Ravenswood 21:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

 * fine Tim! (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Can't we get a '10 faces of doctor who' picture with them going round in order, not Tom Baker to Colin Baker and Peter Davison last?

 * It's not difficult to do so as it's my photoillustration - I just thought people might find it a bit confusing to do it clockwise, as it's not really a round or square shape. Does anybody else think it should be clockwise instead of up to down, left to right? Like I said, it's only a minute or so of shuffling the Photoshop file around. --khaosworks 11:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it would get confusing if it went round clockwise. I prefer it as it is. --Jawr256 11:21, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that clockwise would be the best way, and that a number (bottom right corner of each picture?) would link it nicely to the list at the side. violet/riga (t) 11:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should have a better picture of the TARDIS in "Viewership". --Jawr256 15:19, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Current series question
Rose is prevented from (quite understantably) trying to save her dad in Father's day.

The communications satellite is able to change the course of Earth's history for 90 years and the Doctor is then able to divert it for another century, with a Dalek invasion for good measure - yet nothing happens.

Surely having a character destined to be one of the UK's best PMs in one episode and becoming a city mayor the next time she appears, is a rather blatent failure of series continuity?

 * What are you talking about? Harriet Jones was the future PM, not Margaret Blaine. --khaosworks 20:59, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, but what about the communictions satellite tampering with time? --bjwebb 14:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Technology
It's clearly worth pointing out that the technology in Doctor Who is Sufficiently Advanced. Chandon 02:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarke's laws are mentioned in the serial Battlefield... Tim! (talk) 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh, I don't get what you're on about. --bjwebb 16:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarke's three laws. I put a note on the Battlefield article. Tim! (talk) 17:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How does that resolve the fact that time has been tampered with. Are the systems so advanced that it doesn't matter? Or weren't you refering to the above section at all. --bjwebb 20:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Different section. He's talking about Chandon's remark about "sufficiently advanced" technology. --khaosworks 20:18, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Alternative meaning
I think we need to make a comment near the top of the article saying something similar "Doctor Who is also the name of the main character in the Dalek films which are based loosely on the series". --bjwebb 18:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Loosely based? Same character. There are not 2 Doctor Whos and the Daleks SqueakBox 18:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say it is only loosely based because:

 * 1) The main character is called Doctor Who and not The Doctor
 * 2) He is human not a Time Lord
 * 3) He has two (not one) grandaughters: Susan and Barbara (Susan is the Doctor's grandaughter but if I am thinking correctly Barbara was just a comanion)
 * As for the second Dalek film it is Daleks - Invasion Earth 2150 AD. --bjwebb 18:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case it should be in a paragraph of it's own near ther bottom. This is not a real chap, and with artistic licence and all that; certainly the Doctor Who I knew as a child (69 onwards) was not a grandfather, as the series had moved on; to now say he is human with 2 granddaughters still sounds like the same Doctor Who to me, and therefore this version should be included as a part of the article, SqueakBox 20:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * In addition "Dr. Who" character from the Cushing films is relatively obscure - nobody really associates him with the Doctor except fans and most people are surprised at the mention of the movie. The question is also how to treat the character; as a completely different character, or as an apocryphal (so to speak) version of the Doctor. Certainly, "Dr. Who" is based on the Doctor and supposed to be the Doctor, just with all those added fiddly bits that the movie adds on. To say that "Doctor Who is also the name..." is to really say that "this isn't the same character, this is just something else with coincidentally the same name" which is not quite right. Cushing's "Dr. Who" is best covered, and is, under the other appearances section. Don't get me started on the Japanese "Dr. Who" in the movie "King Kong Escapes"... --21:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think the other appearances suffices. I'm sure I did a "Find (on this page)" for "Cushing" to see if it was mentioned and found nothing though. I guess I spelt it wrong. --bjwebb 13:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I hadn't realised Bjwebb was talking about the Cushing films. It reinforces what I was saying; but yes, lets have a paragraph low down about them as they were great films, and very much a part of the Doctor Who and the Daleks tradition, SqueakBox 15:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

(celebrity) guest appearances
I think this needs to be a short paragraph, I fear otherwise it will turn into a great long list (needing to be spun off to its own article and always open to NPOV) that serves no purpose whatsoever. Distinction should also be made between "Celebs" as well-respected-British-actors (Richard Todd, Julain Glover), well-known-actors-in-other-roles (Michael Sheard), actors-later-to-become-well-known (Martin Clunes) and non-actors-not-acting-but-there-for-their-so-called-celebrity (Davina McCall etc). Harsh words perhaps? GraemeLeggett 09:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is trivial, and should be in an article of its own, not in the main feature article. I'm moving it, with a See Also link. --khaosworks 11:05, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * well knownactors "slumming it" was a feature of the programme and should still be mentioned in the article.GraemeLeggett 13:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Monsters" should be "The Villains" or similar
Not all the baddies on Doctor Who are "monsters". I changed this to "The Villains" a while back, but it was reverted. "The Enemies" could also work.

In particular, one of the Doctor's greatest adversaries, the Master, is of the same race as the Doctor. (I was surprised to find that the Master was entirely left out of this section until I added him.) Categorizing him a "monster" may be arguably somewhat valid in a poetic sense, but it really doesn't work too well.

--Max Clarke

 * "Adversaries" seems to be a better description all around and should cover both. --khaosworks 05:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The gay question in Doctor Who
I am writing in response to the editor who removed my addition concerning Russell T. Davies' introduction of a gay/bisexual character. It is fair comment and criticism to bring up a radical change in a television show that has been aired on both sides of the Atlantic for decades. These two altered paragraphs were deleted by a self-elected 'guardian' of Doctor Who, and I would like to submit them for public approval. Is there anything inflammatory or personal said against the Doctor Who producer? Is it suddenly wrong to criticize a move that might injure the credibility of a great British institution?

''The series' taboo was controversially broken in the 1996 Fox television pilot when the Eighth Doctor was shown kissing companion Grace Holloway. This development may have been calculated to attract female American viewers. The 2005 series strongly hinted at a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler. However, another controversy emerged when male companion Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) demonstrated bisexual flirtations with both the Doctor and his companion. During the Ninth Doctor's regeneration story, Harkness places a kiss full on the Time Lord's lips.

Whereas both Doctor Who producers John Nathan-Turner and Russell T. Davies have been openly gay, it must be noted that, in ten years of Doctor Who, Nathan-Turner never incorporated his own lifestyle into a single storyline. Whether Davies' bold, provocative statement will alienate mainstream Doctor Who fans remains to be seen. ''

 * I guess the difference between JNT and RTD, is that the BBC in 1980s would never have allowed such content in the show, but after the success of shows like RTD's Queer as Folk, noone bats an eyelid anymore. There is more controversy over the 12-rating of the Dalek episode Tim! (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and both The Happiness Patrol and The Curse of Fenric had gay themes (admittedly not blatantly). Tim! (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me just start off by stating how I viewed the events. This is simply as background.  I didn't see a more-than-platonic relationship between the Ninth Doctor and Rose Tyler.  That is, no part of the show made me think there was any actual sexual activity between the two.  Harkness is a different matter, of course, though even in this case, only some flirtation seemed to have actually taken place.

 * I have no problem whatsoever with the first paragraph given above. In fact, it may even be worth expanding it to state whether or not this is the first time on mainstream, prime-time t.v. that an openly bisexual major character has been portrayed.  I suspect not, but at least one of my friends have stated it is so.

 * Your second paragraph, however, is much more inflammatory in my opinion. Presumably by 'lifestyle', you mean homosexuality.  Because certainly Nathan-Turner incorporated large parts of his lifestyle apart from homosexuality.  Additionally, the paragraph reads to me that having a bisexual character in the show is deeply shocking.  I'm not at all sure this is true and even if it is, it probably shouldn't be, not this far past the 19th century.  In any case, you may well not have intended the second paragraph to read as such (and, let's face it, perhaps nobody else would find it at all inflaming).  Anyway, I think the second paragraph could be rewritten to be a bit more encyclopedic. --Yamla 21:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would note that there was no controversy surrounding Jack's introduction as a bisexual character, unlike what the added paragraph implies. There was no public outcry; there wasn't even a glimmer of a whisper about that kiss in The Parting of the Ways - the torture scene in Dalek drew more attention because of Mediawatch's complaint. So even that first paragraph is inaccurate. This is editorialising, not encyclopedic. --khaosworks 22:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Having read your collective assessments, I find it evident that we do have a controversy on our hands. For the record, I also wrote two editorials in the Sci-Fi Channel magazine in 1996 and 1997 protesting Paul McGann's romance with Dr. Grace Holloway -- because it felt unfaithful to the series.  I feel the same is true about this current development.  Small wonder why the U.S. Sci-Fi Channel did not pick up the new series after "viewing several episodes?"  Until the last few episodes with Jack Harkness, my wife and I could not figure why they would pass up a "sure bet" for the year 2005.

 * I may only seem part of a Doctor Who minority, but I did notice reviewers on the Time Meddlers website expressing some qualified doubts as to whether children should be exposed to gay or bisexual themes. I would not even object so much to a same-sex relationship portrayed among the supporting cast, as some may have interpreted from Judson and Millington in the "Curse of Fenric" screenplay.  ("Happiness Patrol" is another matter entirely -- my wife and I disagree with the Discontinuity Guide on this score!  If one goes looking for gay subtexts, one will find them even where they do not exist!)  But we should categorically draw the line when the Doctor engages in such behaviour, however fleetingly or ambiguously.  Having two men kissing openly on a "gay theme" series, such as the aforementioned Queer as Folk, is one thing, but this show is supposed to be Doctor Who!  Is he indeed the same alien portrayed by Pat Troughton or Jon Pertwee?

 * Russell Davies had a responsibility to all Doctor Who fans -- not just those receptive to his views. This new wrinkle in the Doctor's character almost comes across as a "Trojan Horse," wherein Davies slips his agenda into the Time Lord's persona.  I had no quarrel with the Third Doctor's mainstream liberal arguments (as espoused by Malcolm Hulke, Bob Baker & Dave Martin, et. al.), although I felt Barry Letts' New Age affectations could undermine the show's credibility.  I loved the series when it took on the fascist right ("Inferno," "The Green Death,") as well as the lunatic fringe ("Operation Golden Age" and even the ridiculous "Robot.")  I believe with Russell T. Davies as producer, Doctor Who will continue to drift away from the center.  If it is now considered "19th Century" to feel uncomfortable with this new development, then "hail Victoria!"

 * --157.182.224.244 17:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It sounds reasonable to discuss this on the article itself. You have sufficient evidence to convince me that this is controversial for at least some minority of Doctor Who viewers.

 * I, like you, disliked when the t.v. movie had the Doctor kiss Grace Holloway, for the same reasons that you gave. However, given that the line has been crossed, I found nothing controversial in having two men kiss openly.  More so because the Doctor did not instigate the kiss iirc.  However, I understand that some people may find this difficult to deal with.

 * However, (and only vaguely relevant to the discussion here), I take issue with your drawing a line at bisexual themes. Is there any evidence that these are actually more controversial now than the Third Doctor's liberal arguments were back then?  In other words, this may be more controversial to you but if they are no more controversial than previous issues were at their times, is this really worth writing about in an encyclopedia article?  That's a legitimate question for discussion, not a rhetorical question, mind you.

 * Furthermore, I consider it actually part of the t.v. show's duty to push the limits of what society in general considers acceptable, and to explore moral issues. Obviously, this is entirely my opinion.

 * Finally, thanks for discussing these topics in the appropriate forum rather than just trying to force your changes on the article. It is refreshing to see someone at least willing to listen to other points of view, and to back up their points with sources.  --Yamla 17:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * The Judson Milligton "interpretation" is that of the author Ian Briggs. RTD has no responsibilty to fans whatsoever, only to make cracking good television. If you don't like it, poor you. Tim! (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Archive
This page is getting very long so do you think we ought to archive some of it? --Jawr256 18:19, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to keep the Gay Question section until that is resolved (or people stop caring), so either archive everything but that or wait until things settle down a little. But in general, yes.  This page is much too long.  --Yamla 18:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 2


text:
Democritus

Democritus (, ; Δημόκριτος, Dēmókritos, meaning "chosen of the people"; c. 460 – c. 370 BC) was an Ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from Abdera, primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe. Democritus wrote extensively on a wide variety of topics.

None of Democritus' original work has survived, except through second-hand references. Many of these references come from Aristotle, who viewed him as an important rival in the field of natural philosophy. He was known in antiquity as the ‘laughing philosopher’ because of his emphasis on the value of cheerfulness.

Life
Democritus was born in Abdera, on the coast of Thrace. He was a polymath and prolific writer, producing nearly eighty treatises on subjects such as poetry, harmony, military tactics, and Babylonian theology. He traveled extensively, visiting Egypt and Persia, but wasn't particularly impressed by these countries. He once remarked that he would rather uncover a single scientific explanation than become the king of Persia. Although many anecdotes about Democritus' life survive, their authenticity cannot be verified and modern scholars doubt their accuracy. Ancient accounts of his life have claimed that he lived to a very old age, with some writers claiming that he was over a hundred years old at the time of his death.

Philosophy and science
Democritus wrote on ethics as well as physics. The relation between Democritus and his predecessor Leucippus was that Democritus was the student of him; while earlier ancient sources such as Aristotle and Theophrastus credit Leucippus with the invention of atomism and credit its doctrines to both philosophers, later sources credit only Democritus, making definitive identification of specific doctrines difficult.

Atomic hypothesis
We have various quotes from Democritus on atoms, one of them being: "δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτῶι τάδε· ἀρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους καὶ κενόν, τὰ δ'ἀλλα πάντα νενομίσθαι [δοξάζεσθαι]. (Diogenes Laërtius, Democritus, Vol. IX, 44) Now his principal doctrines were these. That atoms and the vacuum were the beginning of the universe; and that everything else existed only in opinion. (trans. Yonge 1853)"

He concluded that divisibility of matter comes to an end, and the smallest possible fragments must be bodies with sizes and shapes, although the exact argument for this conclusion of his is not known. The smallest and indivisible bodies he called "atoms". Atoms, Democritus believed, are too small to be detected by the senses; they are infinite in numbers and come in infinitely many varieties, and they have existed forever and that these atoms are in constant motion in the void or vacuum. The middle-sized objects of everyday life are complexes of atoms that are brought together by random collisions, differing in kind based on the variations among their constituent atoms. For Democritus, the only true realities are atoms and the void. What we perceive as water, fire, plants, or humans are merely combinations of atoms in the void. The sensory qualities we experience are not real; they exist only by convention. Of the mass of atoms, Democritus said, "The more any indivisible exceeds, the heavier it is." However, his exact position on atomic weight is disputed.

His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from those of his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts. Their speculation on atoms, taken from Leucippus, bears a passing and partial resemblance to the 19th-century understanding of atomic structure that has led some to regard Democritus as more of a scientist than other Greek philosophers; however, their ideas rested on very different bases. Democritus, along with Leucippus and Epicurus, proposed the earliest views on the shapes and connectivity of atoms. They reasoned that the solidness of the material corresponded to the shape of the atoms involved. Using analogies from humans' sense experiences, he gave a picture or an image of an atom that distinguished them from each other by their shape, their size, and the arrangement of their parts. Moreover, connections were explained by material links in which single atoms were supplied with attachments: some with hooks and eyes, others with balls and sockets.

The Democritean atom is an inert solid that excludes other bodies from its volume and interacts with other atoms mechanically. Quantum-mechanical atoms are similar in that their motion can be described by mechanics in addition to their electric, magnetic and quantum interactions. They are different in that they can be split into protons, neutrons, and electrons. The elementary particles are similar to Democritean atoms in that they are indivisible but their collisions are governed purely by quantum physics. Fermions observe the Pauli exclusion principle, which is similar to the Democritean principle that atoms exclude other bodies from it volume. However bosons do not, with the prime example being the elementary particle photon.

Correlation with modern science
The theory of the atomists appears to be more nearly aligned with that of modern science than any other theory of antiquity. However, the similarity with modern concepts of science can be confusing when trying to understand where the hypothesis came from. Classical atomists could not have had an empirical basis for modern concepts of atoms and molecules.

The atomistic void hypothesis was a response to the paradoxes of Parmenides and Zeno, the founders of metaphysical logic, who put forth difficult-to-answer arguments in favor of the idea that there can be no movement. They held that any movement would require a void—which is nothing—but a nothing cannot exist. The Parmenidean position was "You say there is a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void." The position of Parmenides appeared validated by the observation that where there seems to be nothing there is air, and indeed even where there is not matter there is something, for instance light waves.

The atomists agreed that motion required a void, but simply rejected the argument of Parmenides on the grounds that motion was an observable fact. Therefore, they asserted, there must be a void.

Democritus held that originally the universe was composed of nothing but tiny atoms churning in chaos, until they collided together to form larger units—including the earth and everything on it. He surmised that there are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some with no sun or moon, some with several. He held that every world has a beginning and an end and that a world could be destroyed by collision with another world.

Mathematics
Democritus was also a pioneer of mathematics and geometry in particular. According to Archimedes, Democritus was among the first to observe that a cone and pyramid with the same base area and height has one-third the volume of a cylinder or prism respectively, a result which Archimedes states was later proved by Eudoxus of Cnidus. Plutarch also reports that Democritus worked on a problem involving the cross-section of a cone that Thomas Heath suggests may be an early version of infinitesimal calculus.

Anthropology
Democritus thought that the first humans lived an anarchic and animal sort of life, foraging individually and living off the most palatable herbs and the fruit which grew wild on the trees, until fear of wild animals drove them together into societies. He believed that these early people had no language, but that they gradually began to articulate their expressions, establishing symbols for every sort of object, and in this manner came to understand each other. He says that the earliest men lived laboriously, having none of the utilities of life; clothing, houses, fire, domestication, and farming were unknown to them. Democritus presents the early period of mankind as one of learning by trial and error, and says that each step slowly led to more discoveries; they took refuge in the caves in winter, stored fruits that could be preserved, and through reason and keenness of mind came to build upon each new idea.

Ethics
Democritus was eloquent on ethical topics. Some sixty pages of his fragments, as recorded in Diels–Kranz, are devoted to moral counsel. The ethics and politics of Democritus come to us mostly in the form of maxims. In placing the quest for happiness at the center of moral philosophy, he was followed by almost every moralist of antiquity. The most common maxims associated with him are "Accept favours only if you plan to do greater favours in return", and he is also believed to impart some controversial advice such as "It is better not to have any children, for to bring them up well takes great trouble and care, and seeing them grow up badly is the cruellest of all pains". He also wrote a treatise on the purpose of life and the nature of happiness. He held that "happiness was not to be found in riches but in the goods of the soul and one should not take pleasure in mortal things". Another saying that is often attributed to him is "The hopes of the educated were better than the riches of the ignorant". He also stated that "the cause of sin is ignorance of what is better" which become a central notion later in the Socratic moral thought. Another idea he propounded which was later echoed in the Socratic moral thought was the maxim that "you are better off being wronged than doing wrong". His other moral notions went contrary to the then prevalent views such as his idea that "A good person not only refrains from wrongdoing but does not even want to do wrong." for the generally held notion back then was that virtue reaches it apex when it triumphs over conflicting human passions.

Aesthetics
Later Greek historians consider Democritus to have established aesthetics as a subject of investigation and study, as he wrote theoretically on poetry and fine art long before authors such as Aristotle. Specifically, Thrasyllus identified six works in the philosopher's oeuvre which had belonged to aesthetics as a discipline, but only fragments of the relevant works are extant; hence of all Democritus's writings on these matters, only a small percentage of his thoughts and ideas can be known.

Works
Diogenes Laertius attributes several works to Democritus, but none of them have survived in a complete form.

 * Ethics: Pythagoras, On the Disposition of the Wise Man, On the Things in Hades, Tritogenia,On Manliness or On Virtue, The Horn of Amaltheia, On Contentment, Ethical Commentaries
 * Natural science: The Great World-System, Cosmography,On the Planets, On Nature, On the Nature of Man or On Flesh (two books), On the Mind, On the Senses,On Flavours, On Colours,On Different Shapes, On Changing Shape, Buttresses, On Images, On Logic (three books)
 * Nature: Heavenly Causes, Atmospheric Causes,Terrestrial Causes, Causes Concerned with Fire and Things in Fire, Causes Concerned with Sounds, Causes Concerned with Seeds and Plants and Fruits, Causes Concerned with Animals (three books), Miscellaneous Causes, On Magnets
 * Mathematics: On Different Angles or On contact of Circles and Spheres, On Geometry, Geometry, Numbers, On Irrational Lines and Solids (two books), Planispheres, On the Great Year or Astronomy (a calendar) Contest of the Waterclock, Description of the Heavens, Geography, Description of the Poles, Description of Rays of Light,
 * Literature: On the Rhythms and Harmony, On Poetry, On the Beauty of Verses, On Euphonious and Harsh-sounding Letters, On Homer, On Song, On Verbs, Names
 * Technical works: Prognosis,On Diet, Medical Judgment, Causes Concerning Appropriate and Inappropriate Occasions, On Farming, On Painting, Tactics, Fighting in Armor
 * Commentaries: On the Sacred Writings of Babylon, On Those in Meroe, Circumnavigation of the Ocean, On History, Chaldaean Account, Phrygian Account, On Fever and Coughing Sicknesses, Legal Causes, Problems

A collections of sayings credited to Democritus have been preserved by Stobaeus, as well as a collection of sayings ascribed to "Democrates" which some scholars including Diels and Kranz have also ascribed to Democritus.

Legacy
Diogenes Laertius claims that Plato disliked Democritus so much that he wished to have all of his books burned. He was nevertheless well known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle, and was the teacher of Protagoras.

Democritus is evoked by English writer Samuel Johnson in his poem, The Vanity of Human Wishes (1749), ll. 49-68, and summoned to "arise on earth, /With chearful wisdom and instructive mirth, /See motley life in modern trappings dress'd, /And feed with varied fools th'eternal jest."

Ancient testimony

 * Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC). Bibliotheca historica.
 * Petronius (late 1st century AD). Satyricon. Trans. William Arrowsmith. New York: A Meridian Book, 1987.
 * Sextus Empiricus (c. 200 AD). Adversus Mathematicos.
 * Sextus Empiricus (c. 200 AD). Adversus Mathematicos.

Translations

 * Bakalis, Nikolaos (2005). Handbook of Greek Philosophy: From Thales to the Stoics: Analysis and Fragments, Trafford Publishing, ISBN 1-4120-4843-5.
 * Freeman, Kathleen (2008). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragments in Diels, Forgotten Books, ISBN 978-1-60680-256-4.

title: Democritus


text:
Disc golf

Disc golf, also known as frisbee golf, is a flying disc sport in which players throw a disc at a target; it is played using rules similar to golf.

The sport is usually played on a course with 9 or 18 holes (baskets). Players complete a hole by throwing a disc from a tee pad or tee area toward a basket, throwing again from where the previous throw landed, until the basket is reached. The baskets are formed by wire with hanging chains above the basket, designed to catch the incoming discs, which then fall into the basket. Usually, the number of throws a player uses to reach each basket is tallied (often in relation to par), and players seek to complete each hole in the lowest number of total throws. Par is the number of strokes an expert player is expected to make for a given hole or a group of holes (usually 9 or 18).

The game is played in about 40 countries and, as of April 26, 2023, there are 0 active members of the Professional Disc Golf Association (PDGA) worldwide.

Origin and early history
Modern disc golf started in the early 1960s, but there is debate over who came up with the idea first. The consensus is that multiple groups of people played independently throughout the 1960s. Students at Rice University in Houston, Texas, for example, held tournaments with trees as targets as early as 1964, and in the early 1960s, players in Pendleton King Park in Augusta, Georgia, would toss Frisbees into 50-gallon barrel trash cans designated as targets. In 1968 Frisbee Golf was also played in Alameda Park in Santa Barbara, California, by teenagers in the Anacapa and Sola street areas. Gazebos, water fountains, lamp posts, and trees were all part of the course. This took place for several years and an Alameda Park collectors edition disc still exists, though rare, as few were made. Clifford Towne from this group went on to hold a National Time Aloft record.

1970s
Ed Headrick, also known as "Steady" Ed Headrick, (June 28, 1924 – August 12, 2002) was an American toy inventor. He is most well known as the father of both the modern-day Frisbee and of the sport and game of disc golf.

In 1975 Headrick's tenure at Wham-O where he helped redesign the flying disc known as the frisbee ended, and ties between Headrick and Wham-O eventually split. Headrick left the company to start out on his own to focus all his efforts on his new interest, which he coined and trademarked "Disc Golf".

In 1976 "Steady" Ed Headrick and his son Ken Headrick started the first disc golf company, the Disc Golf Association (DGA). The purpose of DGA was to manufacture discs and baskets and to formalize the sport. The first disc golf target was Ed's pole hole design which consisted of a pole sticking out of the ground.

Courses
Most disc golf courses have 9 or 18 holes, and exceptions most often have holes in multiples of three. Courses with 6, 10, 12, 21, 24 or 27 holes are not uncommon. The PDGA recommends that courses average 200 – per hole, with holes no shorter than 100 ft. The longest holes in the world measure more than 1500 ft long. Course designers use trees, bushes, elevation changes, water hazards, and distance variation, along with out-of-bounds zones and mandatory flight paths (often referred to as "Mandos") to make each hole challenging and unique. Many courses include multiple tee positions or multiple target positions to cater to players of different ability levels.

Most disc golf courses are built in more natural and less manicured environments than golf and require minimal maintenance, although some courses aim for pristine conditions. Professional course designers consider safety a critical factor in course design, and are careful to minimize the danger of being hit by a flying disc while providing designs that create strategy in play and variety in shots for enjoyment. Holes are designed to require a range of different throws to challenge players with different strengths or particular skills. Many courses are central organizing points for local disc golf clubs, and some include shops selling disc golf equipment. More than 80% of the courses listed on Disc Golf Course Review are listed as public and free to play.

List by country
Three countries account for 85% of all disc golf courses worldwide: the United States (75%), Finland (7%) and Canada (3%). Other notable countries include Sweden and Estonia, which has the highest density of disc golf courses per km2 of dry land of any country and the second-highest number of courses per capita. Iceland and Finland have 150 and 111 courses per million inhabitants, respectively. Outside the North American and European continents, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea have the most courses. There are disc golf courses on every continent, including 24 in Latin America, 8 in Africa, and one in Antarctica. Åland has been defined as the world's largest single disc golf park, with one course in each of the 16 municipalities of Åland.

* indicates "Disc golf in COUNTRY or TERRITORY" links.

Tees
A disc golf tee (commonly referred to as a tee box or the box) is the starting position of a hole. The PDGA recommends that the tee box be no smaller than 1.2 meters wide by 3 meters long, allowing ample space to run up and release the disc. The tee box is usually a pad of concrete, asphalt, rubber, gravel, or artificial turf. Some courses have natural turf with only the front of the tee position marked. In rare instances, there are no tee boxes and players begin from a general location based on the course layout.

Signs
Established courses have tee signs near each tee position. Signs may depict a simple map of the hole including the tee, target, expected disc flight, out-of-bounds areas, water hazards, trees, and mandatory paths. Signs typically include the distance to the hole and par. Some courses include a unique name for the hole and may have sponsor logos. Many courses include a larger sign near the course entrance which has a map of the entire course.

Targets

Although early courses were played using trees, fence posts, or park equipment as the target, standard disc golf baskets are by far the most common type of target on modern courses. Some courses feature tone targets that are designed to make a distinctive sound when hit with a disc. Disc golf baskets are constructed with a central pole holding a basket under an assembly of hanging chains. When a disc hits the chains, it is often, but not always, deflected into the basket. Per PDGA rules, in order to complete a hole with a basket target, the disc must come to rest supported by the tray or the chains below the chain support. There are many different brands of baskets made by numerous manufacturers.

Gameplay
The sport of disc golf is set up similar to a game of golf. A "round" is played on a disc golf course consisting of a number of "holes", usually 9 or 18. Each hole includes a tee position for starting play and a disc golf target some distance away, often with obstacles such as trees, hills or bodies of water in between. Players begin by throwing a disc from the tee, without crossing over the front of the tee prior to releasing the disc when throwing. This could lead to a fault similar to a bowling foot fault in cricket. Players then navigate the hole by picking up the disc where it lands and throwing again until they reach the target. The object of the game is to get through the course with the lowest number of total throws. Play is usually in groups of five or fewer, with each player taking turn at the tee box, then progressing with the player furthest from the hole throwing first, while the other players stand aside.

Each course is unique, and so requires a different combination of throws to complete, with the best players aiming to shape the flight of the disc to account for distance, terrain, obstacles and weather. In order to facilitate making different shots, players carry a variety of discs with different flight characteristics, choosing an appropriate disc for each throw. Some players also carry a mini marker disc, used to accurately mark the throwing position before each throw. Use of mini marker discs is particularly prevalent in formal competitive play.

Many courses include out-of-bounds areas, commonly called "OB zones" or just "OB". If the disc lands in these areas, the player is usually required to add a penalty throw onto their score and continue play from near where the disc entered the out-of-bounds zone. Some courses include out-of-bounds areas with special rules requiring the player to resume play from a specified area called a drop zone or requiring the player to restart the hole from the tee. Some courses also include Mandatories (also called "Mandos") which require the path of the disc to be above, below or to one side of a specific line indicated by a sign.

By tradition, players throw from the tee box in the order of their score on the previous hole, with the lowest scorer throwing first. Most players also follow a loose code of courtesy while playing, which includes norms such as standing out of the sight line of the throwing player and avoiding making distracting noises. Because a thrown disc could injure someone, the Professional Disc Golf Association recommends that players "Never throw into a blind area or when spectators, pedestrians or facility users are within range."

Formal competitive play is governed by the PDGA Official Rules of Disc Golf and the PDGA Competition Manual for Disc Golf events.

Disc types
Disc golf discs are smaller than Ultimate flying discs or general-purpose recreational frisbees. They typically measure 21 – in diameter and weigh 130 –. All PDGA-approved discs measure 21 – in diameter and weigh no more than 200 g. Discs used for disc golf are designed and shaped for control, speed, and accuracy, while general-purpose flying discs, such as those used for playing guts or ultimate, have a more traditional shape, similar to a catch disc. There is a wide variety of discs used in disc golf and they are generally divided into three categories: drivers, mid-range discs, and putters.

Driver
Drivers are recognized by their sharp, beveled edge and have most of their mass concentrated on the outer rim of the disc rather than distributed equally throughout. They are optimized for aerodynamics and designed to travel maximum distances at high speeds. They are typically thrown by experienced players during tee-off and other long distance fairway throws.

Some disc brands further sub-divide their drivers into different categories. For example, Innova has Distance Drivers and Fairway Drivers, with a fairway driver being somewhere between a distance driver and a mid-range disc. Discraft has three categories of drivers: Long Drivers, Extra Long Drivers, and Maximum Distance Drivers. Another type of driver, used less frequently, is a roller. As the name indicates, it has an edge designed to roll rather than fly. (Although any disc can be used for a roller, some behave quite differently than others.)

The world record distance for a golf disc was once 863.5 ft, thrown by Simon Lizotte on October 25, 2014. David Wiggins, Jr. broke the record with a distance of 1108.92 ft on March 28, 2016.

Mid-range
Mid-range discs feature a dull, beveled edge and a moderate rim width. They offer more control than drivers, but they have a smaller range. Mid-range discs are typically used as approach discs. Beginner players will often use mid-ranges instead of drivers at tee-off, as they require less strength and technique to fly straight than higher speed drivers.

Putter
Putters are designed to fly straight, predictably, and very slowly compared to mid-range discs and drivers. They are typically used for tight, controlled shots that are close to the basket, although some players use them for short drives where trees or other obstacles come into play. Additionally, higher speed discs will not fly properly without a fast enough release snap, so a putter or mid-range with lower snap requirements is more forgiving and will behave in a more regular way. Professional players often carry multiple putters with varying flight characteristics.

Stability
Stability is the measurement of a disc's tendency to bank laterally during its flight. A disc that is over-stable will tend to track left (for a right-handed, backhand throw), whereas a disc that is under-stable will tend to track right (also for a right-handed, backhand throw). The stability rating of the discs differs depending on the manufacturer of the disc. Innova Discs rate stability as "turn" and "fade". "Turn" references how the disc will fly at high speed during the beginning and middle of its flight, and is rated on a scale of +1 to −5, where +1 is the most overstable and −5 is the most understable. "Fade" references how the disc will fly at lower speeds towards the end of its flight, and is rated on a scale of 0 to 6, where 0 has the least fade, and 6 has the most fade. For example, a disc with a turn of −5 and fade of 0 will fly to the right (for right handed, backhand throw) the majority of its flight then curl back minimally left at the end. A disc with a turn of −1 and a fade of +3 will turn slightly right during the middle of its flight and turn hard left as it slows down. These ratings can be found on the discs themselves or from the manufacturer's web site. Discraft prints the stability rating on all discs and also provides this information on their web site. The stability ranges from 3 to −2 for Discraft discs; however Discraft's ratings are more of a combination of turn and fade with the predominance being fade.

Spin (rotation) has little influence on lift and drag forces but impacts a disc's stability during flight. Imagine a spinning top: a gentle nudge will knock it off its axis of rotation momentarily, but it will not topple over because spin adds gyroscopic stability. In the same way, a flying disc resists rolling (flipping over) because spin adds gyroscopic stability. A flying disc will maintain its spin rate even as it loses velocity. Toward the end of a disc's flight, when the spin and velocity lines cross, a flying disc will predictably begin to fade. The degree to which a disc will fade depends on its pitch angle and design.

Plastics
There are dozens of different types of plastic used for making discs by the various disc manufacturers. The type of plastic affects the feel of the disc's grip as well as its durability, which in turn affects its flight pattern as the disc becomes worn. "Base plastics" such as DX, J-Pro, Pro-D, X-Line, D-line, retro, and R-Pro from Innova, Latitude 64°, Discmania, and Discraft are some of the less durable, but good for beginners due to their lower prices, compared to the higher end plastics. "Premium plastics", such as Champion, Titanium, FLX, GStar, Gold Line, Tournament Plastic, Fuzion and Star, which are the best offered from the same companies, have the best quality, durability and flight compared to the other types available. There are also plastics that provide additional functionality, e.g. glow in the dark plastic and plastic that allows the disc to float in water. Most companies also offer a line of plastic that is much lighter than the maximum throwing weight (normally filled with air bubbles) which is conducive to beginners or players with less arm speed. Players might prefer bright colored discs to contrast most green flora and recover their disc easier. The commercial production process typically used is injection molding for the low unit cost and reliability. For prototyping and small-scale offerings 3D printing is a growing option with the PDGA approved designs currently available for purchase from company's such as NSH custom discs. 3D printed discs are typically produced using different plastics than traditional production methods, utilizing the printability characteristics of polymers such as TPU or specialized proprietary blends.

Stamps
Stamps refer to the artwork or lettering that appears on a disc. Stamps can appear on the top or the bottom of a disc. Stamps are applied by disc manufacturers by using a hot stamp machine, usually with foil. Stamps not only serve a creative design purpose, but are also used to identify different disc molds.

Throwing styles
While there are many different grips and styles to throwing the disc, there are two basic throwing techniques: backhand and forehand (or sidearm). These techniques vary in effectiveness under different circumstances. Their understanding and mastery can greatly improve a player's game and offer diverse options in maneuvering the disc to the basket with greater efficacy. Many players use what is referred to as a run-up during their drive. This is practiced to build more forward disc momentum and distance. Throwing styles vary from player to player, and there is no standard throwing style.

All discs when thrown will naturally fall to a certain direction determined by the rotation direction of the disc when released. This direction is termed hyzer, the natural fall of the disc, or anhyzer, making the disc fall against its natural flight pattern. For a right-handed backhand throw (RHBH), the disc will naturally fall to the left. For a right-handed forehand throw (RHFH), the disc will naturally fall to the right. For a left-handed, backhand throw (LHBH), the disc will naturally fall to the right. For a left-handed, forehand throw (LHFH), the disc will naturally fall to the left.

Backhand
To perform this throw, the disc is rapidly drawn from across the front of the body, and released towards a forward aimpoint. Due to the high level of potential spin generated with this technique, it often results in greater distance than with a forehand throw. Power is created by initiating momentum from the feet and allow it to travel up the body, hips, and shoulders, culminating in the transfer of energy to the disc.

Forehand
The forehand (sidearm) throw is performed by drawing the disc from behind and partially across the front of the body: similar to a sidearm throw in baseball. The term sidearm actually predates the term forehand, which is seemingly in use today as a simpler means to communicate the technique, equating to a tennis forehand.

Alternative throws
The following examples of throws may be used to better deliver a disc where the former common two throws would be impeded by obstacles such as bushes, trees, boulders, or artificial structures.

Common alternative styles
 * The Hatchet (or Tomahawk). Gripped similarly to the sidearm toss but thrown with an overhand motion; the disc orientation is nearly perpendicular to the ground over much of the flight.
 * The Thumber (or U.D.). Thrown in an overhand manner but with thumb held on the disc's underside.
 * The Roller. Thrown either backhand or forehand, the disc will predominately be in contact with the ground. The disc remains in motion while travelling on its edge at a slight angle and can travel exceedingly far in ideal situations. Once perfected, the roller is an invaluably versatile tool in the golfer's arsenal.
 * The Turbo-Putt Thrown with a putter when the player holds the disc upright, supported in the middle by the thumb, with the finger tips outside of the edge, somewhat like a waiter holding a platter. The player stands with the leg opposite from the throwing arm forward, reaches back, and then extends their arm towards the basket, throwing the disc in a motion similar to that of throwing a dart. Ideally the thrower's wrist does not rotate; the act of following through will give the disc its spin. The Turbo-Putt is a throw known for its accuracy, but it has extremely limited range.

Other alternative styles
 * The Baseball or Grenade. Thrown as in the backhand, but with the disc upside-down. This shot is used often to get up and down on a short shot where there is danger of a shot rolling away or going out of bounds if thrown too far. Primarily used on downhill shots but can be used to go up and over. Also due to the quick turn and backspin of this shot, it is sometimes used to get out of the woods.
 * The Overhand wrist flip (or chicken-wing [ambiguous origin] ). This is a very difficult and stylized throw with which accomplished free-stylers and classic ultimate players are familiar; it is less used in disc golf. It is thrown in the same manner as the "baseball" but drawn on the sidearm side of the body, and by inverting the arm and disc. Using the thumb as the power finger, the disc is drawn from the thigh area rearwards and up from behind the body to over the shoulder, releasing toward a forward aimpoint. The disc flies in a conventional flight pattern. To the untrained eye, this appears to be an ungainly throw. It is, however, elegant and accurate. The term "overhand wristflip" has been in use since at least circa 1970.

Scoring
Stroke play is the most common scoring method used in the sport but there are many other forms. These include match play, skins, speed golf and captain's choice, which in disc golf is referred to as "doubles" (not to be confused with partner or team play).

Regardless of which form of play the participants choose, the main objectives of disc golf are conceptually the same as traditional golf in the sense that players follow the same scorekeeping technique.

Scoring terms for a single hole:

 * Condor – Where a player is four throws under par, or "-4".
 * Albatross (or double-eagle) – Where a player is three throws under par, or "-3".
 * Eagle (or double-birdie) – Where a player is two throws under par, or "-2".
 * Birdie – Where a player is one throw under par, or "-1".
 * Par – Where a player has thrown par, "E" or "0".
 * Bogey – Where a player is one throw over par, or "+1".
 * Double Bogey – Where a player is two throws over par, or "+2".
 * Triple Bogey – Where a player is three throws over par, or "+3".

Doubles play is a unique style of play that many local courses offer on a weekly basis. In this format, teams of two golfers are determined. Sometimes this is done by random draw, and other times it is a pro-am format. On the course, it is a "best-disc" scramble, meaning both players throw their tee shot and then decide which lie they would like to play. Both players then play from the same lie, again choosing which lie is preferable. The World Amateur Doubles Format includes best shot, alternate shot, best score (players play singles and take the best result from the hole) and worst shot (both players must sink the putt).

Tournaments

Tournaments are held nationwide and yearlong in the United States. Sanctioned Tournament play is communicated through the Professional Disc Golf Association Membership. The PDGA provides international, professional, and amateur disc golf tournaments as well as communicates event results, opinions and other information beneficial to the sport via electronic and printed media. In 1982 the PDGA hosted the first World Championship Tournament. Since then, the World Championships have been held in 17 different American states, as well as Toronto, Ontario. One of the largest disc golf tournaments is the United States Disc Golf Championship, held in October in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

As a show of the year-round sustainability of the sport, annual winter tournaments, known as Ice Bowls, are held at courses around the world. Using the motto "No Wimps, No Whiners", Ice Bowls collectively create sport awareness and are considered charity events that typically benefit a local food bank. The official website reports that the 2010 Ice Bowls raised over $250,000 and donated over 67,000 pounds of food in the 222 tournaments for the year. Other charitable tournaments include the annual St. Jude Disc Golf Tournament which started in 2017 and has raised over $100,000 for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

Popularity
A website that tracks courses worldwide along with their opening dates has shown a rapid increase in installed permanent courses with an average of more than 400 new courses added each year between 2007 and 2017. The site lists 9744 courses worldwide.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, as shutdowns and social distancing forced people to avoid indoor gatherings, disc golf experienced significant growth. Televised events were broadcast on CBS Sports and ESPN2 for the first time.

Although most players play on a casual, amateur level, the professional disc golf scene is also growing rapidly, with the top professionals playing full-time and earning their livings through tournament winnings and sponsorship from equipment manufacturers. Online viewership of major tournaments and events has increased rapidly, with coverage of the 2019 world championship achieving more than 3 million views on YouTube, and a clip of an albatross by professional Philo Brathwaite gaining more than 1.4 million views.

Post-round coverage
Increased popularity of disc golf can be largely attributed to increased coverage of pro tour events, available for free on YouTube. Jomez Productions, Gatekeeper Media, and Gk Pro all film events the day of, and then air them the morning after. Often, these videos can have a reach of as many as 200,000 viewers. Jomez's coverage of the final round of the 2019 World Championships has more than 5.5 million Youtube views. In the 2020 season, Jomez Productions and the Disc Golf Pro Tour reached an agreement with CBS Sports and ESPN 2 to air post production coverage of a tournament on each network. The Dynamic Discs Open was shown on CBS Sports, and the Disc Golf Pro Tour championship was re-aired on ESPN2 November 24, 2020. With 225,000 viewers, it was the most-watched show on the channel that day.

Women in disc golf
While there are more male than female players, the Women's Disc Golf Association exists to encourage female players and arrange women's tournaments. A PDGA survey from 2020 states that out of its 71,016 active members, 4,752 are female. Several companies have started programs and websites to help attract women to the sport. The PDGA Women's Committee is "Dedicated to Attract, Encourage, and Retain Female Participation in Organized Disc Golf Events". The PDGA Women's Committee set historical records on 12 May 2012 by running the Inaugural Women's Global Event that attracted 636 female players in 24 states and 4 countries. The Women's Global Event was expected to take place every two years from 2014, with hopes of increasing the number of participants. The 2021 Women's Global Event had 99 registered tournaments that spanned the globe, from Minnesota to Malaysia, with a combined turnout of 3224 women competing in 23 different PDGA divisions.

There are also disc golf companies such as Disc-Diva, that have started up with a primary, though not exclusive, focus on women in the sport, promoting accessories geared towards women and using catch phrases like "you wish you threw like a girl". Sassy Pants is another group that focuses on getting more involvement from women in the sport, advocating for sponsorship of women to enter tournaments.

Women's disc golf teams are involved in the National Collegiate Disc Golf Championship, and the Mississippi State Women's Team were the inaugural champions.

The Disc Golf Hall of Fame
Inductees:

title: Disc golf