text:
Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 1

Subpages considered harmful?
Shouldn't the various artifacts, characters, and creatures unique to the Doctor Who world be in subpages? As Doctor Who/Daleks?

I think Larry is trying to get away from sub-pages and although initially I couldn't see what he was going on about, I had a moment of clarity when I realised that it would make referencing in future quite difficult. I think we are all really waiting for the bracketed solution to Wiki where we can reference by topic.... sjc

Longest-running?
The show is described as "the longest-running television science fiction series ever". While this is undoubtably true, I usually hear it referenced without the "science fiction" clarification. Are there in fact *ANY* TV shows that are longer running?

 * Yes. The longest running show is "Meet the Press", which has been on the air since 1948.  Mr. Rogers ran for 34 years before he hung up his sweater.  I think at least one soap opera has been on since the 1950s. --Belltower

And Coronation Street, the perennial northern soap opera, is definitely the longest running fictional television series in the UK. sjc

And didn't The Sooty Show run for some inordinately long period of time?

Yes but it was in non-continuous periods

 * Also The Sky at Night has been running continuously once a month from 1957 ; Patrick Moore missed his very first episode this month because of food poisoning -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, while Doctor Who is the longest-running dramatic science-fiction series, the Australian children's programme Mr. Squiggle (about a man from the moon with a pencil for a nose) technically wins, since it was never on hiatus for 14 years and ran from 1959 to 1999 - 40 years without any significant breaks. But I'm just being a pedant, looking for an excuse to create an entry for him. ;) Guybrush 03:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, if you want to be pedantic, Mr. Squiggle sounds more like a fantasy series than a science fiction one. But then again, when we're talking about Doctor Who's science we're getting onto dangerous ground... :) -khaosworks 03:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's brought up the fact that Star Trek, in its many forms, has actually run longer in number of seasons (28 so far in its five live-action incarnations) than Doctor Who (26). Of course, the latter has still been on TV longer (since 1963 vs. 1966), and one can argue that Star Trek isn't a single series, so I'd say that Doctor Who still has the best claim to this title (except possibly for Mr. Squiggle ☺). — Jeff Q 02:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do the math
Should it be fourteen years? The last series ended in 1989... 1989-2003 is fourteen years

Terminology
Just for reference, since I've seen pages appear for specific serials: Doctor Who terminology (as roughly remembered from my wasted "memorizing useless information" teenage phase:
 * seasons were the yearly runs, like in other tv shows
 * these were made up of serials -- self-contained stories, in a specific location. The TARDIS was hardly ever moved during a serial, in fact often the Doctor found himself separated form it in some way (captured, the thing stolen, key lost, power supply down, something else implausible)
 * each serial was usually several episodes, 4 or 6 being the most common. (there were only ever about 3 single-episode serialss)

Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death
Perhaps the 1999 Red Nose Day episodes should perhaps be mentioned somewhere. It was four episodes called "Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death" where he meets both The Master and Daleks. The Doctor was played by Rowan Atkinson. During the episodes The Doctor is forced to regenerate several times so he's played also played by Richard E. Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant and Joanna Lumley. Also see http://www.table76.demon.co.uk/DrWho/CurseFD.html // Liftarn 12:33 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Dr Who played by Rowan Atkinson??? That is an odd bit of casting! Incidentally, is it safe to assume that this story is an imaginary one? Arno

 * You assume correctly, it was a for-charity thing I believe. I've seen it, it's hilarious and quite well done. Surpasses the production value of many of the real episodes. :) Bryan

 * That's 'cos they got all the actors and props free on account of it being for charity. :o)
 * For what it's worth, it was Rowan Atkinson in superior git mode (as in the later series of Blackadder), not accident-prone goof mode (as in Mr. Bean). The latter would indeed have been somewhat worrying -- though for some of us, it would merely have confirmed long-held suspicions about how much the BBC truly cares for the series. :) Paul A

Delgado's death
If I remember correctly, Roger Delgado didn't "die suddenly" - wasn't he killed in a car crash in Turkey? Arwel
 * sounds fairly sudden to me ... -- Tarquin 18:25 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Alien?
(-"alien" he's not an alien to begin with, so best explained in more detail elsewhere)
 * The Doctor's no bug-eyed monster, true, but are you suggesting the Time Lords are humans? I've never heard of anything in the canon that suggests that. Salsa Shark 11:03 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * what I meant is that it's not till the nd of Troughton that there's any mention of him being an alien. So it's best explained in detail later, I think. "mysterious" is fine for the intro, I think, with more later -- Tarquin 11:06 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'll buy that. Salsa Shark 11:07 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Anniversary Webcast
The BBC announces its 40th anniversary special: an animated miniseries starring Richard E. Grant as the ninth Doctor. Webcast, rather than on television; but you can't have everything.

—Paul A 03:50 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Behind the sofa?
Could somebody better explain the behind the sofa reference? What do sofas have to do with anything? Tuf-Kat 06:21, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

 * Watching Doctor Who from a position of safety behind the sofa, peering cautiously out to see if the scary bit's over, is (or used to be) one of the great shared experiences of English childhood. Probably not that many people actually did it, strictly speaking, but everyone knew it happened. —Paul A 08:06, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I definatelty used to watch Dr Who from behind the sofa, it's one of my earliest memories quercus robur 15:31, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, we didn't have a sofa in the room with the TV in it -- I used to watch Doctor Who through the crack in the door at the bottom of the stairs! Arwel 10:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * FWIW: the day after I read the above comment I bought the October 2003 issue of SFX magazine. P. 23 has a quote from Mark Doyle (who??), talking about his favourite sci-fi or fantasy hero (The Doctor of course): "Many hours spent watching from behind the sofa in my formative years...[possibly explains a lot]"-- Malcolm Farmer 22:53, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

The Tom Baker photo
Sure he's the longest running Doctor and the most remembered but shouldn't we be fair to the other actors that played the Doctor and have a more general photo like the TARDIS or the DW logo rather then a Tom Baker photo?

PMelvilleAustin 06:28, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Looking back over 40 years
For everybody's information, yesterday (Nov 23 2003) was Doctor Who's 40th birthday. On November 23, 1963, the first Doctor Who episode was broadcast.

BTW, is anyone watching the Hartnell episodes on ABC-TV? I'm finding them surprisingly bland!

Arno 09:49, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I assure you, they were not seen as bland when they were first aired. Most old sci-fi looks pretty dry to us now, but my relatives who watched the first airings of Dr. Who tell me it was an absolute thrill ride (and they did literally hide behind the sofa.) In fact, William Hartnell left the series because he thought it was getting too intense and scary for kids! BarkingDoc

 * Did he? They certainly got scarier after that, whith a far greater emphahsis on monsters and the phasing out of historicals during the Troughton era. But looking at the Hartnell stories now, they seem so bland and sometimes silly. I remember watching the 2-episode "Edge of Destruction" story, and that button marked with what was obviously a texta heading was so silly. The first episode of that story was also hard going, with a weak cliffhanger. Still, there's no getting past the magic of that first Dr Who episode "An unearthly child". Arno 07:46, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Really? The Edge of Destruction is still one of my favourites -- probably partly because of the solid music -- and although it looks dated now, I think it still stands up pretty well.  Err, I haven't actually seen it in over 10 years, though, I guess ;) -- Tlotoxl 08:01, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, its certainly unique. It's one of the only 2-episode stories ever done - I gather that it was meant as a 'filler'- and, aside from Episode 1 of "Ark in Space" - the only episodes to feature DR Who and his companions only. At least Episode 2 was better, no doubt because of a different director. It certainly made more sense. Arno 05:57, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

List of serials
List of Doctor Who serials needs a lot of work - or rather, the individual stories need a lot of work. A few have started appearing (some wikified, some not) but most are still missing. I'm doing what I can. We could do with some sort of consistency of what info is included, how it appears, etc. Anyone got any ideas? --ALargeElk 16:00, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Splitting the page
The page is approaching the 32kb limit, and I'm thinking of culling some of the information and links. Any suggestions? Right now I'm considering removing the info on The Master in the main article, since it's not directly relevant to the Doctor, per se (and also mostly covered in the Master's own entry). The Missing Episodes, Doctor Who in America and Doctor Who Spin-offs sections could be moved to separate articles as well, with pointers as needed. What do you guys think, or shall I just do it?

 * Well- a subject like this could conceivably take up much more than 32kb very easily - if the only way to accommodate that is by splitting into different pages, then so be it - go ahead, I say. Love the work you're doing on this page - looking good -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 16:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moving sections
Does anybody else think that "New beginnings" ought to be moved up to follow "1989 cancellation", ahead of "Missing episodes" and "Other appearances"? Also, it could perhaps do with a new title, such as "2005 revival" or "the new series" or similar. Opinions? Angmering 14:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Okay, what I've done is this. Move 1989 Cancellation down, past "Other appearances" and "Missing episodes" to just before the 2005 section which I've renamed "2005 revival". This makes more intuitive sense (at least to me), as the latest information on the show should be at the bottom of the article. I've also moved the Peter Cushing info from the end of "Changing faces" to where it more properly belongs, in "Other appearances". --khaosworks 16:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems like a good solution to me. You're right about the newest information needing to be at the bottom, I hadn't thought about that. Angmering 19:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zygon query
Were the Zygons an important enough adversary to put in the list of monsters? There's a Zygons orphaned article floating around out there. Joyous 02:56, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * There's actually a Zygon link in the BBV entry. Proper wiki format should mean that Zygons should be moved to Zygon, anyway. I've done that, and for the moment, categorized it as well as added a bit to it. As to whether they should be in the list of monsters, probably not - they only appeared in one serial, and while popular with fans, those mentioned in the main entry under "The monsters" have all appeared at least twice. --khaosworks 03:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Half human?
many protested at the revelation that the Doctor was "half-human on his mother's side,"

Though this does fit with the revelation in Battlefield that the Doctor is Merlin. Afterall, Merlin is "half-human on his mother's side." -- Logotu 19:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * But Merlin was half-demon. Are Time Lords demons? I don't think so. Maybe Geoffrey of Monmouth did.

 * I find it silly when fans complain about plot moves like this. I mean, Doctor Who has always contradicted itself. If the scriptwriters choose to make him half-human, then he is half-human. The fans do not own the exclusive right to choose what direction the franchise takes. Okay, *Rant Over*. :) - Mark 01:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It is ultimately the choice of individual fans to think what they like about such things, though, and if the owners of the franchise want to keep on selling their product to those fans they would probably be well served by paying some attention to what those fans think of what they do with it. "Exclusive rights" don't enter into the mater, unless perhaps one wishes to argue that the owners of the franchise have some sort of right to determine what the fans like. Bryan 02:34, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The beauty, I find, of the nature of time travel in Doctor Who (although this will send some continuity-minded fans into apoplectic fits) is that really, the Doctor's own personal timeline must have beens screwed around with so many times that even he's not sure what or who he is anymore. I've always been of the opinion that canon is what you choose to accept. It may not be the same mere seconds from now. Yes, I know for the sake of enjoyable stories it should be kept consistent as possible. All I'm saying is that the nature of the Whoniverse implies this ready-made mechanism for explaining inconsistencies.

 * As for paying attention to fans - one must note that fans make up only a very small (but vocal) segment of a show's viewing audience. Frankly, if the producers and writers did everything the fans wanted, we'd still have William Hartnell as the Doctor and the Daleks would still be running around on static electricity. Some fans tend to want to complain if there's anything remotely changed about their favorite show, some fans complain if things aren't exactly like they want it to be, and some fans just complain. This happens everywhere - Star Trek, comic books, you name it. Ultimately, the only things writers and producers should worry about is if the viewership ratings slip... that is a much better indicator that something is wrong rather than to solve it by pandering to fans.

 * As for the Doctor being half human... it's one of those things. It doesn't contradict anything we've seen. To be honest, it feels like a cynical marketing ploy directed at the American networks, but it's a minor detail. It does explain his obsession with Earth and humanity in general, though, not to mention why the Cheetah Planet sent him "home" to Earth in Survival (Doctor Who). In Planet of the Spiders, the TARDIS brings him "home", to Earth. In The Ice Warriors, he makes the cryptic remark, "What do you mean, 'I'm only human?!' Well, as a matter of fact..." but goes no further. In The Evil of the Daleks, the Daleks identify him as "more than human".

 * So... y'know. The fans who are complaining about how it contradicts continuity don't have much on their side, I'm just sayin'. On the other hand, if they're complaining because it violates the spirit of the Doctor, that's a whole 'nother debate. --khaosworks 04:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I could dispute some of those issues you raise, but that would be a side issue because you're totally right on the last point; I was thinking more of the "spirit" of Doctor Who rather than whether the Doctor's revelation meshed with continuity. I have my own personal vision of Doctor Who and when I'm enjoying Doctor Who "for fun" rather than "for encyclopedic purposes" I freely pick and choose from available continuity inside my head to match it. :) Bryan 05:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who is the Doctor?
As the series progressed, the Doctor's role was gradually fleshed out. From nothing at the beginning to apparently quite a senior position or respect (if not approval) amongst Time Lords, going by vague memory perhaps even close to the Presidency or similar.

So the section "Who was Dr Who?" never really answers its own title. Could someone with more knowledge than I have, fill in what's actually known of the Doctor and his background by adding a sentence or so about Dr Who as a Time Lord, his position, and stance amongst time lords, or similar? Thanks FT 01:54, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * That is, in effect, the entire point of the section. "Who is the Doctor?" points out the unanswered, eternal question at the heart of the series, more than any dry recitation of the Doctor's character history would - which is riddled with contradictions anyway. His position among his people has never been particularly good - he was Lord President for a time, but as Arc of Infinity showed, he was replaced because he ran away from the job, and he was placed on trial in Trial of a Time Lord.

 * So it's all status quo now, really. The last time we saw Gallifrey was in Trial, spin-offs notwithstanding. The Doctor is what he's always been, a renegade, and that is amply, IMO, represented in the text. Any one else have any other thoughts?

 * By the by, the regeneration bit you added is a bit redundant, since it's covered under "Changing faces" below. khaosworks 06:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Khaosworks, thats exactly the kind of extra info I was after :) FT2 18:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

That Michael Grade paragraph in the 2005 section
I removed it yesterday and now it's been put back. I don't want to start a pointless edit war so I thought I'd start a discussion about it here. By all means, have a comment along the lines of Grade saying he doesn't mind the series coming back as long as he doesn't have to watch it, but it's the allow part that's just plain wrong. As the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC, Grade is in charge of the BBC's regulatory body - one that has no say over editorial decisions such as whether a particular drama programme will or will not be made. The fact that so many Doctor Who fans got worried when he returned to the BBC as chairman has more to do with their paranoia than what Grade could actually do or not do. Angmering 14:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How about the full quote. Something like: On 2 April 2004 speaking on BBC Radio Four, Grade said "This time it's none of my business what happens to Doctor Who, as long as I don't have to watch it." Rmhermen 15:43, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good compromise. I suggest for the full paragraph: Ironically, in April 2004 Michael Grade returned to the BBC, this time as the Chairman of the Board of Governors, although this job does not involve any commissioning or editorial responsibilities. As Grade himself said on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme on April 2nd, ""This time it's none of my business what happens to Doctor Who, as long as I don't have to watch it."    How does that sound? Angmering 15:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Added, with some rephrasing. --khaosworks 16:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That seems to have settled it nicely! Angmering 16:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Eye of Harmony
Noticed that there were a few links to the Eye of Harmony but no article for it. I have created a short stub to fill the gap - feel free to add/delete/modify/whatever. Zaphod Beeblebrox 11:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rassilon
Rassilon - Another in Dave's sequence of "plant a stub and watch it grow" articles on the back of yesterday's Eye of Harmony success. Again - modify as you see fit. Zaphod Beeblebrox 05:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Matrix
Added Matrix (Doctor Who) as an entry. --khaosworks 16:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article growth
Since I split the Doctor Who in America and Doctor Who spin-off articles off from the main article some months ago to reduce the unweildiness of the page, the article has grown considerably since then. While It is undoubtedly interesting to include so much detail on the back and forth that created the series (and the new one) and add a bibliography, I'm wondering whether all this detail is strictly necessary. Just throwing this out for possible discussion. -khaosworks 13:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, a Reference section is simply regarded as being good Wikipedia practice, which is why I added that. And as for the details on the creation and the production of the series - well, we have plenty of information on the fiction in the article, whereas I felt there was less of the reality. If it were up to me (which it isn't, of course) I'd cut back on the fiction before the production, as the fiction can more easily be split off into separate articles - remember, this is about the television series Doctor Who, not necessarily the character The Doctor... Angmering 15:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear, in case anyone takes it the wrong way, that I'm not faulting any of the additional material. My editor's eye just looks at the stuff there and starts feeling the urge to think of ways to condense it. Still, any more views on this from other people? -khaosworks 19:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't believe in removing valid information purely for space reasons. How about splitting off the sections "Who is the Doctor?" and "Changing faces" into the article The Doctor (Doctor Who), which would be all about the main character specifically, and leave this article to be all about the show itself? This makes sense to me because as things stand the current article is about two distinct subjects that can be discussed separately. The only tricky bit I can see in doing this would be finding some way to preserve that wonderful pun in the first of those two section headers. :) Bryan 19:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * That strikes me as being a good idea, too. Angmering 19:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't be a problem - how about, we create two new detailed articles - History of Doctor Who, and The Doctor (Doctor Who), which we can pile in all the detail we want about the production and the character respectively. The current sections can remain, just condensed down to an essential summary with a pointer to the respective detailed article (rather like the way country articles have pointers to "History of..." articles).

 * In the The Doctor (Doctor Who) article, following the introduction: "The Doctor is the main character in the British science fiction blah blah blah..." and some other introductory remarks, we can have the "Who is the Doctor?" header as well. Sound good? -khaosworks 23:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. You could probably take out the 'References' section too, as it'll be duplicated in the History of Doctor Who article - I only quoted the sources there I'd used for putting together the new 'Origins' and '2005 revival' bits. Angmering 23:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Who wants to do it (no pun intended)? I would, but I'm at Worldcon at the moment. But if there's no particular hurry, I can do the necessary when I get back on Monday. -khaosworks 05:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * It is done! History of Doctor Who needs expanding of course, but I shall work on that over the next few days, and doubtless others will come along and contribute to such a topic. Angmering 11:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry if it seemed as if I was being overly defensive! :-) Here's a thought - if it is decided that the additional production history is too much (although I maintain the single paragraph on the creation of the show was a bit mean, which is why I expanded it to three, and there was nothing at all about *why* the show is coming back) how about a separate History of Doctor Who article, concentrating more on the production history, in the same way that there's a general article on The Beatles and a more detailed History of The Beatles? Angmering 19:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Enemies
What about a doctor who subpage with a list of enemies instead of a tiny section on the main page? First we could add the main ones and when people come they can add others.

 * My difficulty with that is that in 40 years, the Doctor has racked up a lot of enemies. Who do we put in and who don't we? I don't think that it's useful to put in everybody. I'd rather list the major recurring villains - Daleks, Sontarans, Cybermen, Autons, and leave the others to individual entries. Category: Doctor Who adversaries, perhaps. Thoughts? -khaosworks 21:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spinoffs
A couple of things with the spinoffs -

Should the Novellas section be merged (or at least moved adjacent to) the original fiction? I don't see why there should be an artificial split based on length especially as the short stories are mentioned in the original fiction section.

What about a games and other merchandising section?

Should the Audio and Original Fiction (and novelisations for that matter) have links to a complete list of works?

Would like to hear what others who have done a lot of the extant work think before ploughing ahead as some of these sections will be exhausting as well as exhaustive.

 * I've done some reoganization so hopefully the arrangement of sections is a bit more logical. If you want to put in external links to lists of the fiction, that'd be fine. The Virgin New Adventures, for example, article already has a list of all the Virgin novels (I would just balk at having the list within the current article). A merchandizing section would also not be amiss, I think, but if it gets too long, may deserve its own article. Let's try it and see. -khaosworks 21:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who villains
List of Doctor Who villains is redundant, as there is a list of Doctor Who villains in the List of supporting characters in Doctor Who. One should be folded into the other. Thoughts? -khaosworks 22:12, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FAC
I reckon this is close to being a Featured Article. Khaosworks has made some excellent additions and would be ideal to take it through. Personally I can't see much more that could be added. violet/riga (t) 17:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * My blushes, although of course this was a group effort over the last six months or so. I'll put it up as a kind-of self-nomination and see how it goes. -khaosworks 02:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 1


text:
Leslie Banks

Leslie James Banks CBE (9 June 1890 – 21 April 1952) was an English stage and screen actor, director and producer, now best remembered for playing gruff, menacing characters in black-and-white films of the 1930s and 1940s, but also the Chorus in Laurence Olivier's wartime version of Henry V.

Early life and career
Leslie Banks was born in West Derby, Liverpool, Lancashire, to George and Emily (née Dalby) Banks. He attended school at Glenalmond College in Scotland, and later studied at Keble College, Oxford with the intention of becoming a parson, but decided against this.

He joined Frank Benson's company, and made his acting debut in October 1911 at the town hall in Brechin, playing Old Gobbo in The Merchant of Venice. He then toured the United States and Canada with Henry V. Esmond and Eva Moore in 1912 and 1913. Returning to London, he appeared for the first time on the West End stage at the Vaudeville Theatre on 5 May 1914, as Lord Murdon in The Dangerous Age.

During the First World War he served with the Essex Regiment. He received injuries that left his face partially scarred and paralysed. In his acting career he would use this injury to good effect, by showing the unblemished side of his face when playing comedy or romance and the scarred, paralysed side of his face when playing drama or tragedy. After the war, Banks joined the Birmingham Repertory Theatre. He returned to London in 1921, and established himself as a leading dramatic actor and West End star known for his powerful yet restrained performances.

Working in both London and New York City, he gained prominence on both sides of the Atlantic, and it was when he was in New York that Kenneth Macgowan persuaded him to go to Hollywood and make his first credited movie debut there in The Most Dangerous Game in 1932.

Film career
His formidable bulk and intimidating aspect served him well in his first important film role, as a diabolical Russian hunter of human prey in The Most Dangerous Game (1932). The film features Joel McCrea and Fay Wray. For the rest of his career, he divided his time between Britain and the United States and between film and theatre. His other film roles included Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), Fire Over England (1937), Jamaica Inn (1939), Laurence Olivier's Henry V (1944), and David Lean's Madeleine (1950). Against 'type', Banks starred in The Arsenal Stadium Mystery (1939), as the eccentric Inspector Anthony Slade.

His theatre roles included Eliza Comes to Stay (his American debut in 1914), Captain Hook in Peter Pan (his New York debut in 1924), the title role in Clive of India (1934), Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew (1937), the schoolmaster in Goodbye, Mr Chips (1938), and James Jarvis in the Kurt Weill musical Lost in the Stars (1950).

Personal life
He married Gwendoline Haldane Unwin in 1915; they had three daughters, Daphne, Virginia, and Evangeline. Banks was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) for his services to theatre in 1950, the year of his last appearances on stage and screen. He died in 1952, aged 61, from a stroke he suffered while walking, and is buried in St Nicholas Churchyard in the village of Worth Matravers, Dorset.

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

title: Leslie Banks


text:
User:Waltpohl/Drafts

/Finance

title: User:Waltpohl/Drafts


text:
User:Waltpohl/Drafts/Finance

Finance is the mechanism by which individuals or organizations transfer wealth through time and manage risk. Finance includes banking, investment, credit, and insurance.

Individuals or organizations transfer wealth through time by either investment or debt. Investment is the creation or acquisition of an asset in the hopes that it will maintain or increase in value over time. Debt is an arrangement where a lender provides wealth to a borrower now and later the borrower returns it. From the point of view of the lender, debt transfers wealth forward in time, while from the point of view of the borrower it transfers it backwards in time.

title: User:Waltpohl/Drafts/Finance


text:
Arbogast

Arbogast may refer to:

People

 * Arbogast (magister militum), a 4th-century Frankish general
 * Arbogast (Count of Trier), a 5th-century Frankish-Roman comes in Trier who may have been Bishop of Chartres
 * Arbogast von Franckenstein, a 10th-century knight and sworn defender of the Franckenstein realm
 * Bob Arbogast (1927–2009), American radio broadcaster, voice actor and television host
 * Carl Arbogast, compiler of the eponymous Arbogast Method used in selection cutting silviculture
 * Louis François Antoine Arbogast (1759 – 1803), a French mathematician who published a well-known calculus treatise in 1800
 * Roy Arbogast (born 1941), American special effects artist
 * Saint Arbogast (c. 600s–700), an Irish missionary and Bishop of Strasbourg
 * Thierry Arbogast, a French cinematographer known for his collaboration with director Luc Besson
 * Todd Arbogast, an American mathematician known for his work in subsurface modeling

Characters and fictional entities

 * Carl Arbogast, River Phoenix's character in the film Sneakers
 * Chief Dino Arbogast, a senior officer of the New York Police Department in the TV series Blue Bloods
 * Dr. Larry Arbogast, Danny DeVito's character in the film Junior
 * Detective Milton Arbogast, the investigator in Alfred Hitchcock's film Psycho
 * UNS Arboghast, a scientific research spaceship in the TV series The Expanse

title: Arbogast


text:
Cathay International Television

Cathay International Television was a Canadian television broadcasting company.

Formed in 1982 when a partnership (consisting of Bernard T.C. Liu, Kent Lee, Sing Kwan So and Brian Sung) as World View as a multi-ethnic regional pay television network in British Columbia, but forced to re-organize under bankruptcy in 1984 when it ran into financial problems and acquire interest in fulfilling 92 hours a week of ethnic broadcasting.

After the departure of Liu, the remaining partners formed Cathay International Television Incorporated (following approval by the CRTC) and changed their format to provide 96% Chinese content on the new channel with the rest with other ethnic programming.

The channels main programming was from Hong Kong with only 21.5 hours from local programming (local programs and news).

The company grew from a Vancouver area broadcaster to become a regional broadcaster (in Calgary and Edmonton), but failed to provide access to non-Chinese programming as required by the CRTC. It was purchased in 1987 by Chinavision Canada to become a national cable channel for Chinese language communities in Canada. Today it is part of Fairchild TV broadcasting network.

Key Personnel

 * Kent Lee, President of Cathay and former Director of World View
 * Sing Kwan So (1927–2014) Chairman and Secretary, former druggist in Hong Kong and grocer in Guyana and founder of Wing Hing Company of Vancouver
 * Brian Sung, Managing director and controller; Vancouver businessman

title: Cathay International Television


text:
Soft left

The soft left, also known as the open left, inside left and historically as the Tribunite left, is a faction within the British Labour Party. The term "soft left" was coined to distinguish the mainstream left, represented by former leader Michael Foot, from the hard left, represented by Tony Benn. People belonging to the soft left may be called soft leftists or Tribunites.

Definition
In the context of the Labour Party, the term "soft left" was coined in 1981, when Neil Kinnock refused to support Tony Benn for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. It described a faction of the party which disagreed with the conservative tendencies of the Labour right and the radical tendencies of the "Bennite" left, also known as the hard left. In parliament, it was represented by the Tribune Group of MPs and consequently came to be known as the Tribunite left as well. The soft left also aligned itself with the Labour Co-ordinating Committee (LCC).

The soft left was initially considered another faction in the Labour left along with the Bennite left, though unlike the Bennite left, it was willing to compromise on some issues to keep the party united and electable. Neil Kinnock, a leader of the soft left, became leader of the Labour Party in 1983. When he moved rightwards in this role, the soft left followed him. As alliances were made between the soft left and the party leadership, the ideological distinctiveness of the LCC and the Tribune Group declined. The soft left formed an alliance with the Labour right to oppose the Bennite left and support Kinnock's leadership. During his leadership, the soft left also formed a new moderniser faction with members of the Labour right against the party's traditionalist faction. The soft left was no longer an identifiable faction on the Labour left by the time of the 1992 general election, with the Tribune Group disbanding by the time Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994. The process whereby the soft left drifted away from the Labour left and pitched itself against the Bennite left is known as the "realignment of the left".

In modern politics, the soft left refers to a faction in the Labour Party which opposed the New Labour project but has avoided the politics of the modern Labour left, also known as the hard left. Ideologically, it is described as centre-left and is typically thought to occupy the space in the party between the Labour left and the Labour right. While the Labour left is more supportive of socialism, the soft left is more supportive of social democracy. It believes in compromising more traditional socialist policies to make Labour more electable. It is one of the four main factions in the modern Labour Party.

The term "soft left" has been said to carry negative connotations which can suggest a less enthusiastic approach to socialism. It has been argued that the term "inside left" should be used instead. The left-leaning magazines New Statesman and Tribune have used the term as well. However, unlike the term "hard left", which can be considered pejorative, "soft left" members have used the term as a self-descriptor to distance themselves from the "hard left". Soft left MP Lisa Nandy advocates a "better name" for the faction; she has said the term "sounds a bit like you’ve sort of collapsed into a jellyfish". Open Labour, the main organisation representing the soft left, has preferred to use the term "open left".

History
The distinction between hard and soft left became evident during the leadership of Michael Foot (1980–1983), who, along with Tony Benn, was one of the two figureheads of the party left. Supporters of Foot (an anti-communist whose background was in the Tribune group) and Benn (originally on the party's right but by the end of the 1970s to Foot's left and a more uncompromising supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament) became increasingly polarised.

In the election for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party in 1981, left-wingers such as Neil Kinnock abstained from voting for Tony Benn, signaling the emergence of an independent soft left grouping in the party. The term came to be used in contrast to hard left, who were more explicitly socialist in rhetoric, remaining associated with Benn. In common with the party right, the soft left was suspicious of the hard left's alliance with Trotskyism (particularly its links with Militant), supported a parliamentary rather than extra-parliamentary road to socialism, retreated from a commitment to widening public ownership of the economy, and tended towards Atlanticist or Europeanist rather than anti-imperialist foreign policy.

The parliamentary group which came to be associated with the soft left was the Tribune group. The Tribune group was formed around the newspaper of the same name and had represented the party left as a whole until Benn's allies formed the Socialist Campaign Group. The Labour Co-ordinating Committee grew to become the soft left's main factional organisation in the 1980s, despite having begun its life as a Bennite or "hard left" body. The soft left, influenced by the intellectual interventions of Mike Rustin, Geoff Hodgson and Peter Hain, increasingly rejected the socialism from above of Stalinism and social democracy. It stressed pluralism, including multifarious forms of social ownership and widening Labour's electoral coalition. Figures identified with the soft left in the 1980s included MPs David Blunkett, Robin Cook, Bryan Gould and Clare Short.

While Kinnock initially emerged from the soft left, portraying himself as a "media-friendly Michael Foot", he tacked to the right of the Tribune group, although they continued to vote with him in the National Executive Committee. Soft left candidates increasingly gained positions in the party leadership after 1983, but Kinnock and deputy leader Roy Hattersley kept the party to their right. Kinnock's defeat in the 1992 general election signalled an end to the soft left's rise, as they were increasingly marginalised by the modernisation project associated with Tony Blair. The 1980s soft left began to diverge over time; for example, some figures (such as Blunkett) became loyalists to Blair by the end of the 1990s. However, activist figures such as the National Executive Committee member Ann Black and a range of MPs continued to work as part of the 'broad left'.

Contemporary soft left
In 2015, Neal Lawson, the chair of the think tank Compass, identified the organisation as a successor to the soft left. Compass disaffiliated from Labour in 2011 in order to open up their membership to people belonging to other political parties. The activist group Open Labour was launched in 2015 with the aim of developing a new forum for the soft left political tradition within the party, which it hopes to recast as the "Open Left". In the 2017 general election, several Open Labour activists were elected to Parliament including Open Labour Treasurer Alex Sobel, Emma Hardy, and Rosie Duffield.

In the aftermath of the party leadership (2015–20) of Jeremy Corbyn, who has been identified as a hard left MP, the term was generally used to mean "the space between Corbynite remnants on the left, and Progress and Labour First on the right". Keir Starmer, the current leader of the Labour Party, and Angela Rayner, the current deputy leader, have both been described as soft left.

Labour politicians on the soft left
People belonging to the soft left may be called soft leftists or Tribunites. The following Labour politicians are often considered to have been on the soft left of the party for at least some of their careers, but may not identify themselves as such:

 * Andy Burnham
 * John Denham
 * Anneliese Dodds
 * Angela Eagle
 * Barry Gardiner
 * Kate Green
 * Nia Griffith
 * Louise Haigh
 * Emma Hardy
 * John Healey
 * Sadiq Khan
 * Anna McMorrin
 * Ed Miliband
 * Lisa Nandy
 * Angela Rayner
 * Alex Sobel
 * Paul Sweeney
 * Gordon Brown
 * Neil Kinnock
 * John Smith
 * Emily Thornberry

title: Soft left


text:
Raabe

The last name Raabe specifically originates from Prussia, derived from a Prussian warrior clans' symbol: a raven, which was one of the four beasts of war. During Prussia's decimation, most of these warriors intermarried with the Danish, and slowly made their way to Germany and Austria. The last name "Rabe", however, originates in Germany. Rabe also means raven. Jewish surname of Raabe derived from Hebrew word Rav meaning Rabbi, which is a title given to a Jewish scholar or spiritual leader of a Jewish community. Recent historical bearers of the name "Raabe" may refer to:

 * Sigrid Solbakk Raabe (born 1996), Norwegian singer-songwriter
 * Brian Raabe (born 1967), American baseball player
 * Ed Raabe, owner of Raabe Racing Enterprises
 * Hedwig Raabe (1844–1905), German actress
 * Herbert P. Raabe (1909–2004), German theorist, inventor and engineer, see Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem
 * Joseph Ludwig Raabe (1801–1859), Swiss mathematician
 * Max Raabe (born 1962), German musician
 * Meinhardt Raabe (1915–2010), American actor
 * Nancy Raabe (born 1954), American composer
 * Peter Raabe (1872–1945), German composer
 * Rudolph Raabe (1881–1968), American pharmacist and namesake of Ohio Northern University's Raabe College of Pharmacy
 * Sascha Raabe (born 1968), German politician
 * Wilhelm Raabe (1831–1910), German novelist
 * Dierk Raabe (born 1965), German materials scientist

title: Raabe


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yosemite Valley

Yosemite Valley
I think we are about to delist some mountain photos so there is room for a new one. I recall visiting Yosemite National Park as a child, and this picture from PDphoto.org really does it justice with its crisp detail and rich color. Its used as a rather small thumbnail on the Yosemite National Park page, but is a little larger on the Yosemite Valley page. - Solipsist 09:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''Nomination period for this image is extended for an extra two weeks to allow time to acquire an anticipated potentially better quality version of this image. - Bevo 19:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)''
 * Regarding the extension: Two weeks have passed (almost) and I'm still waiting for the hi-res images. Perhaps we could wait another couple of days? --MarkSweep 09:14, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably better to renominate it as and when the hi-res version turns up. Thanks for following up on this. -- Solipsist 09:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Nominate and support. - Solipsist 09:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 14:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautiful. Enochlau 19:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Was thinking about nominating this before. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:51, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If you look at the full image, there's some serious problems in the sky. Autiger 05:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are visible JPEG artifacts in the sky. Perhaps someone could upload a version with less compression, i.e. higher JPEG quality setting. I've uploaded a tweaked version in which I manually removed some of the noise in the sky.  You'll have to look at the full image to see the difference. --MarkSweep 07:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support either one -- Chris 73 Talk 23:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Strong preferecne to the original version. When you compare the two images one straight after the other, the original one looks abit blurry, but I saw the original before the modified and the first impression that it looks great stuck. I dunno why, but the slight blurriness matches the photo and doens't detract. --Fir0002 04:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I modified the original to remove the JPEG artifacts that Autiger pointed out. That involved selectively blurring a few areas, which I tried to counteract by selectively sharpening the foreground.  It could be that I went overboard with the sharpening, though. --MarkSweep 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just for the record, I shall officially abstain from voting. --MarkSweep 05:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ansel Adams isn't PD yet, is he? Matthewcieplak 08:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually yes! But only for his photos documenting the Manzanar War Relocation Center, one of which I added to the Adams page just last week. He took a few other photos for the US gov, but it is less clear that they are PD (see Talk:Ansel Adams - if the 'Tetons and Snake River' photo could be verified PD, I would nominate it here). You've got another 50 years to wait for his Yosemite photos to go out of copyright. -- Solipsist 14:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know how Ansel got involved, this isn't one of his pics. Cavebear42 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first one has jpg artifacts and the second one is terribly oversharpened. Will support if a higher quality original is uploaded and if the license is confirmed to be public domain.Janderk 17:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is no doubt whatsoever that the image has been released into the public domain. Did you check the original image source which is indicated on the image description page?  It even has a Creative Commons "public domain" icon on it.  Regarding the oversharpening, I could redo the smoothing of the sky area and not sharpen the foreground as much, but I doubt I'll get around to this anytime soon.  Maybe someone else could give it a try?  It's not very difficult.  About better image quality, PDPhoto explicitly offers hires versions (3000x2000 tiff files with 8 bits per channel) for $2 each.  Does anyone feel generous?  If anyone decides to purchase the hires version, perhaps indicate this here and/or on the image description page, and make sure that we can get the hires version under an appropriate license (see WP:BRP).  I'm in the process of contacting PDPhoto.org myself. Update: I've been in contact with pdphoto.org and will upload a high resolution file as soon as possible. --MarkSweep 20:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the license, which I should have noticed. It would be really nice if we could obtain a higher res version. Personally I would be happy with an image of the same size as long as the jpg compression is less. Janderk 12:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral, for the same reasons as Janderk - Bevo 23:24, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've heard from pdphoto.org and will hopefully receive an uncompressed high resolution file soon. I don't have an ETA, and I don't know when the vote will officially close.  If it's supposed to close very soon, I'd argue for extending it. --MarkSweep 13:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extension in those circumstances (possibly resolveable quality of image concerns to an image that otherwise contributes substantially to a Wikipedia article) seems a good idea to me. - Bevo 16:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * support. Its a great crisp pic at either res. Cavebear42 08:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support both. Especially unmodified. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you see the flaws in the sky in the original? On one of my monitors I can't see them, and yet on another display they show up clearly.  - Bevo 15:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not promoted yet: +8 / -3 / 2 - There could be enough support here for a consensus to promote, but I think the objections would change to clear support once a version without jpeg artifects becomes available. -- Solipsist 21:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
Somethin' Else (song)

"Somethin' Else" is a song by the rockabilly musician Eddie Cochran, co-written by his girlfriend Sharon Sheeley and his elder brother Bob Cochran, and released in 1959. It has been covered by a wide range of artists, including Johnny Hallyday, Led Zeppelin, and the Sex Pistols.

Original version
Bob Cochran, Eddie's brother, and Sharon Sheeley share the song writing credit along with Eddie. The first-person lyrics describe how the singer wants a convertible car he cannot afford, and a girl who he fears will not go out with him. But in the end, by saving money, he is able to buy an older car, and works up the confidence to ask the girl out.

Musicians on the session were: Vocals/Guitar: Eddie Cochran, Drums: Gene Reggio, Electric Bass: Don Myers. The song peaked at No. 22 on the UK Singles Chart, and reached No. 58 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the U.S.

Renditions
French singer Johnny Hallyday recorded a version titled "Elle est terrible". A live version, recorded at the Olympia Hall in Paris, was first released in 1962 and spent one week at the top position on the singles sales chart in France (from December 15 to 21). In Wallonia (French Belgium), it spent 28 weeks on the chart, peaking at No. 4.

It was a part of The Move's repertoire in the late sixties, featuring on the EP Something Else from The Move recorded in London's Marquee Club in 1968.

The Sex Pistols recorded a version of "Something Else" for the album The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle (1979). The double A-sided single was credited to "Sex Pistols: vocals Sid Vicious" [sic] and was released three weeks after Vicious died. It peaked at No. 3 on the UK Singles Chart. The second side of the single was "Friggin' in the Riggin'", also credited to "Sex Pistols: vocals Steve Jones".

Canadian band Teenage Head recorded a version of "Somethin' Else" for their 1980 album Frantic City.

English hard rock band UFO covered the song for their 1982 album Mechanix.

Led Zeppelin recorded a version during a 1969 BBC session which was released in 1997 as BBC Sessions.

title: Somethin' Else (song)