At present, the copyright / fair use status of these are being judged each individually, which makes very little sense to me. For instance, the picture on Remembrance of the Daleks was deleted citing WP:NFCC#8, but I fail to see any material difference between Remembrance's picture (which I don't even think was a still from the episode (the angle is wrong), but that's besides the point) and Doomsday's picture which is still up, complete with a full fair use rationale. Particularly in the case of Remembrance, the picture was the Dalek levitating up the stairs at the end of part one, which is unquestionably a key moment, not just in that story but in the whole of Doctor Who as a whole, both on- and off-screen. So does someone now need to restore these images and make the case for every single one of them? Or is the case-by-case basis sufficient (which I don't think it is)? Spa-Franks (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
NFCC#8 is a two-part test - that the image aids the reader in understanding the topic, and that omission of the image harms that understanding. For episode screencaps, you can nearly always say the first test applies, but the second test is far more difficult -- unless you have clear sourced information that says why this was a critical scene or the like. To use an example of ones that I know would qualify, A Town Called Mercy and The Doctor's Wife use images of details about the props/costumes that are discussed in depth in the text - and omitting the image would make it difficult to picture those elements (thus harming the understanding).
So turning to the "Dalek climbing the stairs" of Remembrance, while that is a critical plot point (showing the Daleks have evolved) and one of discussion as a core concept of the episode, the question is, does this help the reader understand the article if we took it out? Arguably no on the basis that the reader will already be familiar with what a Dalek is. Showing it hovering up steps is not a far stretch of the imagination compared to the above examples. --Masem (t) 22:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the contrary, the Dalek climbing the stairs is given two (non-consecutive) paragraphs in the Remembrance article, and in my view is actually more necessary to picture than the two examples given above: Mercy is simply "x wears y which was based on z" which I don't see any rationale for inclusion of an image there at all, especially not compared to Remembrance. The Doctor's Wife is more ambiguous as it can be argued either way - whilst it's no doubt a necessity to see the makeshift console, a free use image of it is featured further down the page (from the exhibition) so I don't necessarily see why the latter image cannot go in the infobox if we're applying the criteria that stringently unless there is a local consensus that it's screenshots or nothing, which I am not disputing if there is. Either way, the Remembrance article is decent as is, and I would like to get Remembrance up to GA if I can find the time... Spa-Franks (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
The supporting text can be in the body (the caption is not the place to give out full dev details) but it does have to be sourced somewhere, and I'm not saying Remembrance's image doesn't have sourcing to talk about Dalek's going up stairs. It's just that, if you know what a Dalek is, the image of it going up stairs with some type of hover device is... rather predictable? Uninspired? Perhaps there is discuss that at the time of its first airing that was a scary scene (given the impression of DW on Britian's youth at the time) and that could be better justified. --Masem (t) 23:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Who has said that it's a copyright violation? (As examples of images that were deleted for copyvio reasons, look at these edits) Alex 21 (talk·contribs) removed the image from the Remembrance article stating Rmv; image does not conform with WP:NFCC#8 policy. - NFCC 8 is not about copyright, it's about contextual significance. The file description page still has a WP:FUR for Remembrance of the Daleks, so the removal could have been reverted per WP:BRD. Have you asked Alex 21 to comment? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Fun fact, all 14 of the revived era season articles (the past 12 series and two separate specials articles) are now all at GA level. Series 13 will be sure to be added to this collection early next year! -- /Alex/2110:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a great achievement, and I commend all editors involved across all 14 articles. However, I have some issues with some of the series articles—namely, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Some of these are better than the others—9 and 10 in particular—but, if I'm being completely honest, I'm struggling to see how they all passed their GA reviews. Don't get me wrong, they're all well written, but they feel incomplete—like they were well-maintained while the announcements were being made, but weren't otherwise fleshed out with details. To quickly name a few prevalent issues:
Series 2 and 3 both feature a long list of guest stars in the series (35 in series 2, 41 in series 3), almost none of whom are actually sourced.
Several other sentences in the series 3 "Casting" section are also unsourced.
The "Critical reception" sections are often either far too short (3, 11, 12) or entirely missing (2), and some of the others could do with a little expansion.
There's a significant lack of behind-the-scenes information, especially in regards to writing. Series 1 and 5 are some of the best examples of what these sections should look like. In their current state, these appear more like a list of announcements: "X wrote this episode, and Y was announced to be writing an episode".
On that note, most of these articles—particularly the later ones—fall into the trap of proseline, featuring lists of dates and announcements without any actual substance.
Series 8 might be the worst victim of this, and doesn't appear to have been rewritten since the original announcements. At least one sentence is even written in future tense: "Gareth Roberts ... has been confirmed to be returning". That was written almost eight years ago.
As I said, none of these are poorly written—the lead sections, especially of series 8–12, are a highlight, as are the episode summaries—but I genuinely believe that some of these were promoted to GA too early. Some would likely even struggle to reach B-Class. I certainly hope that I don't offend any editors involved, but I would much rather outline my problems here than in a GAR.
I'd like to revisit this discussion regarding the infobox image on season articles. I think it's pretty clear that the cover art for The Collection releases are ideal (e.g. season 23), but, in their absence, our current alternative is the DVD cover art for the first serial of the season (e.g. season 1). I think this is a good compromise, but I wanted to revisit the discussion and raise my original idea of replacing these with the logos from each season. This wasn't the case in the last discussion, but we appear to have versions of each classic series logo on Wikimedia Commons: seasons 1–4, 4–6, 7–10, 11–17, 18–21, 22–23, and 24–26. Would you prefer to keep the existing method, change to the logo, or perhaps something else? I'd love to hear your thoughts. – Rhain☔07:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Audio plays notability
Hi. I noticed that a total of 245 Doctor Who audio plays (Category:Audio plays based on Doctor Who) are tagged for notability (making up about 0.4% of CAT:NN). Most of these have been tagged as such by Hzh in early 2019. Looking at a few of them at random, it seems that they are mostly just plot/cast and either unsourced or only sourced to primary sources, and indeed probably lack the significant coverage required for standalone articles (although there could be some exceptions). Does anyone here want to help tackling this issue? One option would be to merge into list articles covering related series of plays, as was done with for example Iris Wildthyme (audio drama series). Lennart97 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The tags are there to encourage people to add sources, so far I don't think anyone has really make any effort to do it apart from the odd few here and there, perhaps the independent sources aren't there for most of them. The options are to redirect, merge or delete these articles if independent sources aren't available. I redirected some of those to List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish or the appropriate series article a couple of years ago because they were tagged by other people for many years but nothing was done to improve them. Those remaining will likely be redirected if no improvement is done to them. If you feel that some can be merged to an appropriate list article, then by all means do it, there is a better chance that independent sources can be found for them. Hzh (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. By posting here first I was mainly hoping that any of the resident Doctor Who enthusiasts (entWhosiasts?) may want to take the lead in this process, but if not, I'll definitely start merging/redirecting some of these myself at some point. Lennart97 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I can't remember whether there were ever templates for 3-7 or not A. You could certainly run them through TFD and they are redundant for sure :-) MarnetteD|Talk02:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Hm. When I first posted about them, it was just their television stories. Now, they seem less redundant, given that each template puts together each Doctor's television stories, audio and books, something no other template does, and which is more in line with the related villain/creature templates. This is definitely beneficial for the classic-era Doctors, given the number of articles that exist for their extended media. -- /Alex/2115:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I've created {{DoctorWhoTV}} to link episode articles to their respective episode entry on the official Doctor Who stories website. The template should automatically generate the links and text; for example:
In April 2020, the Black Guardian article was turned in to a redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. It was described as a merge but it seems that there was no detail in the latter article. It seems odd to have an article on the White Guardian but nothing of any detail on the Black. I am tempted to restore the Black Guardian article. Thoughts ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
In all honesty, the White Guardian article will probably be flagged for deletion/redirect as well eventually. It's just that none of the (for lack of a better word) "busybodies" have noticed it yet. DonQuixote (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The Black Guardian article was tagged as lacking sources for 12 years - at least the White Guardian article has some sources. Though I guess it is difficult to say much about them that isn't in-universe. -- Beardo (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Eve of the Daleks
re. Eve of the Daleks: I know the Doctor Who project is usually all over these episode articles, but I have an IRL friend who has technically been an editor much longer than I but also edits much less, and he both wants a walkthrough of episode editing and was impressed with this episode. I've worked on a lot of media articles myself and reviewed several Doctor Who-related GAs, so I would do the walkthrough on this, but I don't want to basically use this article as our training ground without asking permission. Alternatively, if any of you would want to be a guide, I'm sure he'd be happy. Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not removing it; I'm reverting your addition of it, there's a difference. Could you please show clear examples of where we have regularly added links to future episodes? (Also, your claim that I cited "template documentation" is very much false; I'd recommend you strike it.) -- Alex_21TALK13:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Reverting an addition is removing, but phrase it however you like. I don't have examples of where we "regularly added links to future episodes"; that's why I started this discussion: to determine what the standard practice should be, since it mostly appears to be a silent consensus up to this point. (Outside of Doctor Who, though, linking to future episodes appears to be the standard on television articles.) As for "template documentation": you're right, you didn't explicitly state this in your edit summaries, but, until you removed it, your reversionsrestored this phrasing in the hidden comment—the comment that you originally wrote—so I think the attribution is fair. – Rhain☔14:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I'm gonna have to agree with Rhain here, the standard Template:Infobox television episode even reads The title of the next episode. If an article or redirect exist, link to it. If one does not exist, consider creating a redirect to the episode anchor in the season article. If a redirect isn't created directly link to the season article with an anchor to that episode. If this is the last episode of the TV series, leave blank. Not only does it not say anything about not linking if the article doesn't exist, it actually encourages linking to an anchor or redirect. In fact, the template documentation says nothing about it. So if it can be done with the standard episode Infobox, why not the DW episode Infobox, especially when the episode title is sourced? TheDoctorWho(talk)21:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Duly noted. If there's more support for it than against, then no worries, I've self-reverted. (Besides, I wouldn't want to disagree with TDW.) -- Alex_21TALK04:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I was just providing my opinion. If you still wanted to wait for others, I'd understand, two people over three messages isn't necessarily a hard and fast consensus. You're allowed to disagree with me if you think otherwise. TheDoctorWho(talk)05:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
BBC Classic Episode guides (sort of) removed
Not sure what to do about this, but probably something should be. Although the BBC archived classic episode guide top page links still work, the sub-pages with all the information now uselessly redirect to the current (new) series page. See The Evil of the Daleks as a random example. Of course, all the information can still be found through Wayback Machine archiving. Should we switch over to archive links? U-Mos (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I have uploaded three images onto Commons of the BBC production set at Gloucester Cathedral during the filming of this episode. Might they be of use to this article somewhere? They are here, here, and here.
Mojo0306 (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Hi, please can someone explain why classic series story titles are in italics, but new series story titles are not?
Sorry if you get this asked regularly.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Long works (serials, novels, etc.) are in italics and short works (episodes, short stories, etc.) are in quotes. DonQuixote (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah I see, so since most New Who are one parters, they are classed as episodes. Which would also account for Mission to the Unknown not being in Italics. Although you still have the odd discrepancy like The Five Doctors being in italics while The End of Time not being in italics. despite the former being a single 90min block and the latter being two parts with a total running time about 3/4 of an hour longer.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The Five Doctors was a single feature-length special (feature-length films are counted as long works). As for The End of Time, it was in italics until a few years ago when the concensus was changed to regard them as regular television episodes like Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse). DonQuixote (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
First/last appearances of characters in episode lists
User:Blacksummerisfuntimescauseitsonnetflix(contributions) has been adding First/Last appearances of characters to all the revived series Series articles' episode lists summaries. I'm thinking this is too much fannish info for the episode summaries, and is better covered (and in many cases is already) in other sections of the articles. Thoughts? Etron81 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It's basically trainspotting. With regards to DW, the really only marker like this used is the first and last episode for any given incarnation of the Doctor, for obvious reasons. --Masem (t) 23:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
60th Anniversary / Series 14
What's our thoughts on articles for the 60th anniversary and Series 14 at the moment? We have Draft:Doctor Who (series 14), which includes RTD's general time as upcoming showrunner of the show, so that includes the anniversary and the next series together. The anniversary special has commenced filming (as per reliable sources), but I don't want to move the draft to the mainspace, given that it's only the special filming, not the actual series.
Do note, however (again), that we don't actually know the layout of any upcoming episodes. We don't know if Series 14 will air after the 60th anniversary, we don't know if the special is part of the series, nothing is actually confirmed. So, thoughts? -- Alex_21TALK13:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping it in draftspace for now, especially considering how little information actually exists. – Rhain☔14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
There is no "anniversary special" to speak of as of now. The format of the anniversary episode/s have not been specified at all - could be a full series (14), could be a one-off or a series of specials before series 14 in 2024; we simply do not know. Given that, I don't think there's an issue moving the draft to mainspace; there is now a reasonable amount of well sourced information there. U-Mos (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The draft of series 14 article, which encompasses any potential specials connected to the production period. U-Mos (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
We would move the Series 14 article to the mainspace if we can reliably source that Series 14 specifically has commenced filming. -- Alex_21TALK00:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
That's my thinking too. It's an odd situation either way, considering how little we know. Could we make an article like Doctor Who 60th anniversary or 60th anniversary (Doctor Who) (à la Pokémon or Mario I suppose) since we don't currently know if there's a "special" in question yet. If it turns out to be a singular special, then we can follow the aforementioned 50th precedent; if it's a series of specials detached from series 14, then we'll move it to something like Doctor Who (2023 specials). For now, we're in a tough spot. – Rhain☔00:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is having started filming (which carries no inherent output in marketing or secondary material) the marker for moving to the mainspace, as opposed to notability/amount of reliable sources? U-Mos (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Not an official guideline, but per WP:NFTV: "a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming". This is the policy for films, so it's generally adopted for television too. – Rhain☔01:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with an article titled 60th anniversary (Doctor Who), removing the "special" terminology, since we know the content is being filmed for the anniversary, but not specifically in what format.
As Rhain said, the marker for moving to the mainspace is per WP:NFTV, which was created in the same vein as WP:NFF. All other television series articles follow this guideline; there is no reason for Doctor Who not to as well. -- Alex_21TALK01:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Revisiting this some months later, we now know per reliable sources that the 60th anniversary is separate from the series; the 60th anniversary has been filming (simply the "anniversary" itself, not commenting on the number or layout of episodes yet), and Series 14 is officially set to begin filming in November.
I would now further support creating 60th anniversary (Doctor Who) with the sourced content on the anniversary (which is what was done in 2013), and keeping the Series 14 article a draft only until November (the commencement of filming), and only related to Series 14 content (although it's obvious that there will definitely be some crossover between the two).
Yes, there's clarity now which justifies the split. Filming information from earlier this year in the 60th article, Ncuti casting in series 14. U-Mos (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, though I think the 60th anniversary article should be written as a "series" (à la the 2008–10, 2013, and 2022 specials), since that's what it looks like at the moment; if I'm wrong, and it's basically a three-part serial, then the article can be adapted as such (like "The End of Time"). – Rhain☔00:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Rhain: This article List of Doctor Who home video releases is full of link to the Amazon shop, which is promotional and break Wikipedia Terms of Use. They need to be removed. It is unacceptable to have over 80 links to a shop. It looks to me as though somebody has been paid to put those links in. What value is the article to the average reader anyway. As far as I can see the whole article violates WP:NOT. scope_creepTalk14:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Nobody has been paid to add them, they're simply there to source the release dates, which is an acceptable use per WP:AMAZON and WP:RSPAMAZON. Of course these two articles "never underwent page review"; they're brand new, but they were split from a decades-old article per editor consensus. Instead of draftifying, you should have started a discussion. – Rhain☔14:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a bit of historical context, the Amazon links were used to verify titles and release dates. There probably could have been better ways/sources, but the point is that the original intent of the original editors wasn't to promote Amazon, although it does appear that way without any knowledge of context. DonQuixote (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
That is bollocks. That rule is for external links only, not mainspace references. That is complete abuse of its original intention. The article has been redirected by another editor in good standing anyway, who is also on the page review team at NPP. If it is reverted I will have to make a complaint directly to the UPE team for breaking the Terms of Use. I would suggest you copy it to sandbox or take it to draft and work on it there to remove the amazon promo links. scope_creepTalk14:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
In fact, they're both about referencing, if one were to actually read them. Scope, the only reason the Blu-ray article was redirected was because you redirected the DVD article in the first place. You ignored the consensus of project editors, and over 30 articles now have broken transclusions as a result. – Rhain☔14:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The guideline specifically states "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.)" It is hard to see how that can be more definitive and is clearly not bollocks. MarnetteD|Talk01:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been working for a while on improving the article The Sirens of Time with the intention of going on and working on the subsequent Big Finish Audios (at least in the main range), but one thing I've noticed while looking around is that most of them seem to not pass WP:GNG and have a bunch of other recurring issues. I've already redirected The Entropy Plague because my search for sources turned nothing up, and I've nominated The Widow's Assassin at AfD here.
Some of these articles have been tagged with {{notability}} for years (some, like The Girl Who Never Was, are coming up near 10 years of being tagged with multiple issues). Mostly, these stubs consist of:
A very short plot summary (many of which are literally just copy-pasted from the official Big Finish synopsis, like with Whispers of Terror)
A cast list
A couple of trivia sections (it seems like they're mostly WP:OR, but even if not there are no references and they're pretty clearly violating WP:TRIVIA)
There's almost never substantial information on the real-world side of things (production, reception, etc.).
My main motivation in working on The Sirens of Time was seeing these issues and wanting to improve the articles, but the more I look into it the more I think they don't warrant standalone articles and it's better to turn them all into redirects to the main series pages. Short plot summaries can be included in the episode tables, and the trivia sections shouldn't be there in the first place, so the only thing that would really be lost is the cast list. I'm sure there are some audios that pass WP:GNG (like The Sirens of Time probably does, helped by the fact it was the first release), but they're the exception rather than the rule.
I don't want to do this without discussing it somewhere first, so I'm bringing it here in case people disagree with my assessment/what to do about it. If not I'll just go ahead and start redirecting the tagged ones and tagging the others. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
As soon as this discussion came up, I knew what it was about. As someone who's edited a lot of Big Finish articles and keeps up-to-date on the timing of their releases (especially Doctor Who ones), I've noticed a lot of GNG-failing articles, especially for the individual episodes of particular series (most of which were created many years ago in the presence of lesser guidelines), and I would be in complete support of redirecting them. It's something I've thought about bringing up before and I never did, but now that you have, it's a great time to bring it wider attention. -- Alex_21TALK09:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Good to know I'm not the only one haha. If nobody objects in the next couple of days I'll start redirecting the ones that've been tagged. I'll still do a check to make sure they fail GNG just to be sure. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I remember going through a phase of this around 9 or 10 years back. The Big Finish ranges were just expanding all over the place even then and it wouldn't have been possible for anyone but an ardent completist with lots of spare cash. Another editor PRODed a lot of articles leading to a bit of retaliatory PRODs on Doctor Who book articles. We ended up with some of the monthly range with improved sources and the sub ranges reduced to pages for the sub ranges with short summaries for the individual releases. But as with a lot of these initiative there was more work to do than interest.
Personally, I have no issue with that. Most of those plots were written a decade ago and are extremely poor in terms of grammar and structure. -- Alex_21TALK21:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah like I mentioned in the original comment here, there's almost nothing from the articles that really can be merged. Often the "plot summary" was just the publisher's own summary copied into Wikipedia without attribution, and the other sections were rife with original research and trivia that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. OliveYouBean (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)
I have nominated Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Given that the above AFD passed as redirect, I can understand the reasonings to redirect them and merge the infobox and track listings into each soundtrack's respective series articles, as doing this loses no information and gathers all information in the one article. I've begun to do so with the 2022 specials and Series 13, while converting the track listings to the standarized {{Track listing}}. -- Alex_21TALK03:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Doctor Who (series 2) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Doctor Numberings
I think the doctor's numberings are off on the List of Episodes page, (if not all over). Jodie Whittaker almost certainly played the 14th Doctor and Peter Capaldi the 13th Doctor. The problem is with the number for The War Doctor. Matt Smith's Doctor was probably the 12th (he thought he wouldn't regenerate because he was the 12th), but he acted in concurrence with The War Doctor or The War Doctor's maybe the first iteration in the fictional (Whoverse) time line. ProofCreature (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
In The Time of the Doctor, Matt Smith refers to David Tennant's Doctor implicitly (the one who didn't change his appearance when he regenerated) as Ten. DonQuixote (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
It's been ten years since the introduction of the War Doctor, this has been discussed countless times already. -- Alex_21TALK23:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
"MURRAY GOLD will be the composer for the next season of Doctor Who! Is anyone surprised?! Full story & interview in this week’s new DWM"
Is this a good source to add Gold for the next series? I suspect waiting for the new DWM would probably be best.. Etron81 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the sources only specify the 2023 specials for his return, hence my note here.
Cultbox says The press release didn’t state whether Gold will go on to score the Doctor Who festive special and Doctor Who Series 14 with Ncuti Gatwa but Russell T Davies said on Instagram: “MURRAY GOLD will be the composer for the next season of Doctor Who!”, whereas Gizmodo says It is currently unknown if Gold will carry on regularly working for the series beginning with the upcoming 14th season of the show, set to air some time in 2024.
Here's some screenshots concerning Gold and Ncuti. Without it explicitly saying "Gold will be back for Series 14", I think these are conformation enough. [1][2] -- Alex_21TALK08:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
As I've stated in my edit summaries, the 2023 Christmas episode not listed under the 2023 specials because that article is for the 60th anniversary, and the 2023 Christmas episode was produced as part of Series 14's production blocks. Any special produced as part of a series' production has been listed with that respective series, back to Series 2 in 2006; you can actively confirm this across every series article with a special. Cheers. -- Alex_21TALK06:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hang on - I'm at the last stage of a series of edits. Just let me finish, and then we can discuss and/or revert. Nfitz (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@Nfitz Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex_21TALK06:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Just let me finish - then we can discuss ... and revert. Go work on something else for a few minutes! Nfitz (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
No worries. I'll wait until you've finished, then revert them again immediately so we can discuss while the articles remain in their previous state. -- Alex_21TALK06:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - the splitting the 4 specials between the two doctors was a very tricky edit. I had to finish before I completely lost track of what I was doing. Now easier to re-do if necessary. Nfitz (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Before we instantly revert (and we can do so in a few minutes if you want) two things
1) Many edits, especially initially, were very non-BOLD fixing erroneous references, etc. You wiped out several corrections and improvements I did before I put the Christmas Special in with the other 2023 specials. For example, how can 2023 Christmas Special be referenced to a December 2018 DWM, when the issue and page match a November 2022 DWM, but the topic is actually not mentioned! And a few others too. If we revert, there's a different start point we should go to.
The 2023 Christmas special was not produced with the anniversary specials, it was produced with Series 14. ALL separate specials produced within a series' production block are included in the article for that respective series. The 2008-10 specials were all produced together, the 2013 specials were both produced together, the 2022 specials were produced together; this is why all of those respective specials are grouped together. Here is a complete list on such examples, where a special was produced with a series:
Series 2: includes "The Christmas Invasion"
Series 3: includes "The Runaway Bride"
Series 4: includes "Voyage of the Damned"
Series 6: includes "A Christmas Carol"
Series 7: includes "The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe" and "The Snowmen"
Series 9: includes "Last Christmas" and "The Husbands of River Song"
Series 10: includes "The Return of Doctor Mysterio" and "Twice Upon a Time"
Series 11: includes "Resolution"
Series 12: includes "Revolution of the Daleks"
Hence, that is why the 2023 Christmas episode is included with Series 14, as it was Series 14's second production block. I see how you are trying to separate them on the episodes article (with difficulty, with up to 13 edits in a row), but in their original format, they are already separated appropriately.
If you wish to change the format again, I would first recommend that you either familiarize yourself with discussions that have already happened, or open a new discussion to suggest your proposed changes to formats that have been existing for months, if not years. If you'd like to make individual fixing edits, like you mentioned, you are welcome to do so separately. Hope this explains everything satisfactorily! (Also, thanks for the heads up on TND; as far as I know, that is not true or valid information, and needs fixing, I'll add that to my ToDo list.) -- Alex_21TALK07:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Come again? I did? I addressed both? Nevertheless, I addressed why there is no consensus or support for edits such as these. -- Alex_21TALK07:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you are going to change your responses after I'd done my response. We'd need different roll-back points. Yeah you addressed The Next Doctor ... but you didn't actually say anything. All I've done that seems to be the issue, is make it compatible with The Next Doctor - it was how that was done that drove my entire change - because it was inconsistent. That has been that way for over a decade - I don't see why we'd change it now, or do it differently. Nfitz (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I did say something, I said it's incorrect. You've apparently conformed with one article, and then not confirmed with twelve more, I can't see the sense in that. So, yes, I agree with you: this has been the way for over a decade, I don't see why we'd change it now, or do it differently. And if the separate edits need to be made, then they should be made after the rollback, as you've interspersed them throughout the format edits. (Also, I added to my respond before you. Not after.) -- Alex_21TALK07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not understanding your pronoun usage in the first sentence. What did you say is incorrect? I don't understand that first sentence at all (which may be because it's 3:30 AM here, and that edit took about twice as long as I'd planned!). Also, I'm not aware of a comparable situation except Series 4 and the 2008/2010 specials. In every other case, there was only the usual Christmas special.
There are other examples though, where episodes are part of different production blocks, than the seasons they aired. For example, Planet of Giants and Dalek Invasion of Earth were taped as part of Season 1, not Season 2. Robot was taped as part of Season 11, not Season 12. Terror of the Zygons was taped as part of Season 12, not Season 13. There's other examples ... Nfitz (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
"The Next Doctor" statement is incorrect. And yes, "there was only the usual Christmas special" is correct - exactly the same with the 2023 Christmas special and Series 14; the former was produced along the latter, so it matches the exact same situation as every other Christmas special before it.
Those are examples of the classic era, which I admit I am not overly familiar with. However, for the article specific to the 2005–present of the show, this is the consensus on how to lay out the articles and specials. -- Alex_21TALK07:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The Next Doctor was produced as the 10th production block of Season 4 - why do you doubt that? The season 4 article even mentions that. The Next Doctor was filmed in April/May 2008 right after Journey's End before Series 4 even finished airing; they didn't start on the specials until 2009. And The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe wasn't filmed as part of Series 7; though perhaps the less said about Series 6 and 7 the better.
When we split the article in two, to cover the original and new series, the consensus was that it was about file sizes. There was no intention to treat either set of episodes differently. You say there's consensus but I don't see where it is.
Looking at the edit history, it looks like the appropriate rollback time is exactly 5:00 AM UTC - this is when I switched from fixing issues, to fixing the Christmas Special. And it's only the Series 14 article that wouldn't have the complete rollback. Nfitz (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I oppose the BOLD edits by Nfitz. However, I think it is unhelpful to attempt to impose any one-size-fits-all rule for this, when circumstances are different and at times complex. It is certainly the case that "The Next Doctor" was produced with series 4 and not the following specials. However, in that instance the secondary sources, promotion and home media distribution makes it illogical to list it with series 4. (That is also the case for The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe being listed with series 7 - I believe swayed primarily due to its eventual inclusion in the series 7 DVD release.)
Currently, both production-wise and promotionally, the three Tennant-starring specials this year are being considered separately to the following Christmas special, and therefore we should follow suit. In the unlikely event that changes through secondary sources, DVD releases or iPlayer organisation, for instance, we could revisit.
I do think, however, there's a possibility that Doctor Who (2023 specials) isn't the best title, because that very much implies that it would cover every special broadcast in 2023. I previously suggested (and can't remember how far I went down that route) moving and developing the 2023 specials article to a broader and more prose-led 50th anniversary piece (more prominently discussing celebratory events and media beyond the TV episodes) rather than the slightly awkwardly-fitting series structure (removing the need for title consistency), and I think there is scope to revisit that alongside the 60th anniversary. U-Mos (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I do think the casual reader would understand why the 2023 Christmas special isn't included in this article based on its general scope, even with the title. Taking the Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) as an example again, if standard logic were that it includes every special that aired in that year, that article would hypothetically need to include "A Christmas Carol", which aired 364 days and one series later (and is also grouped with series 6). TheDoctorWho(talk)03:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
A Christmas Carol had a full series in between it and the previous special, so confusion is very unlikely there. This year's Christmas special looks to be being released just 2-3 weeks after the previous special. U-Mos (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
I've located the relevant discussion myself and Alex were previously involved in about this, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 32#Specials in episode tables and corresponding home media releases. Prior to this point, only DVD releases were considered when placing specials within series articles (hence The Next Doctor, hence TDTWaTW). The discussion led to production blocks being considered for the Whittaker/Chibnall era (spurred by the inclusion of post-series 11 special "Resolution" in the series 12 DVD set), but not to retroactively change anything prior to this. U-Mos (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Why separate it? It can preceed the episode table in exactly the same fashion as the other Christmas specials in series' tables. -- Alex_21TALK00:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
One can do a lot of things - there's no rule. I guess we need to move the 2009 Christmas specials to Series 5 and the though if it has to be that way! And move the Husbands of River Song to the following season. There's certainly some big inconsistencies now. Last Christmas was filmed shortly after Series 8 was filmed, airing on December 25, 2014 - a few weeks after Series 8 finished airing. Yet it's listed in the Series 9 article - but not discussed; the article notes that Series 9 didn't start filming until 2015! Nfitz (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
As stated below, the consensus was determined as including specials with the series' boxset is was affiliated with. Hence the positioning of THORS and LC. I don't get why the need to change what's been set for years; if it's not broken, don't "fix" it. -- Alex_21TALK08:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Except it is broke. As I pointed out the Series 9 article says that both the 2014 Christmas special is part of Series 9, and that Series 9 filming didn't start until 2015. Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't say at all the the 2014 special is part of Series 9; no Christmas special has ever been considered part of a series. And yet, below, you've said that grouping by home media sets makes more sense than by production block, and now with Last Christmas, you're saying that grouping by production block makes more sense than by home media sets? -- Alex_21TALK20:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll rephrase that for the pedantic. The Series 9 article both includes the 2014 Christmas special and that Series 9 filming didn't start until 2015. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Combine Doctor Who (2022 specials) and Doctor Who (2023 specials)
The former two were all produced in a row. The '22 and '23 specials were filmed at least seven months apart. And the former two were produced by the same production team for each of their respective specials; the '22 and '23 specials are completely different in their productions. -- Alex_21TALK07:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Don't forget that the first two 2022 specials were recorded as part of Series 13. It was all part of an 8-episode production block, with only a relatively short break (less than a month) before The Power of the Doctor started filming; alternatively, and to be consistent, the 2022 specials could be in Series 13, rather than with the four 2023 specials. (as a counter argument to merging 2022 and 2023, would be the different production team - and even the whole Bad Wolf/Disney thing). Nfitz (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, normally I'd have no issue with the 2022 specials being part of the Series 13 article, especially supported by the fact of the eight-episode production, except for the fact that the latter had a specific subtitle applied to its six episodes, making Series 13 its own very specific thing. -- Alex_21TALK09:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that 2008-10 were marketed as a home media box set, showing that they considered them a "set" - same thing for the 2022 specials and 2013 (in the UK only for the latter though) Etron81 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
That makes more sense than it being by production block - which is what another user claimed. I guess we are yet to see how the home media will be released. Nfitz (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
As for now, 2023 Xmas was filmed with Series 14, as its second production block, which is why it is where it is. -- Alex_21TALK08:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This talk page is to discuss content, not conduct; the following section goes off-topic.
And while there is a case for that, it would make more sense if the 2023 Specials article was renamed to something like November 2023 Specials (though we don't yet know if they all air in November) or 2023 60th anniversary specials. Though how you can still be arguing the whole thing is production block based I don't, given that the 2023 New Years special was part of (and discussed in) the Series 13 filming. It feels sometimes like there's OWN issues to me, and that you have an idea how this will go, and will throw out reasons to do it this way or that way, that are inconsistent with even other very recent seasons! In reality though, we really can't be sure what might not make sense, until we see what material is aired - especially given how close RTD holds things to his chest (otherwise known as RTD lies). Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
You often have OWN issues, no matter what the edit - this has been discussed previously, even over the most minor issues. I'm not aware of a single other part of Wikipedia where someone acts like such a gatekeeper. No edit in the Doctor Who or Star Trek area is possible without your need to weigh in, and explain why it has to be done the way you like it. Also numerous false claims - the explanation above about how it was organized was false, as pointed out by another editor. And why claim that no suggestions I've made have been made - there's been several that remained in the article, such as the removal of the December 2018 DWM article reference about Series 14, and the addition of a November 2022 DWM reference about it being Christmas specials, and not festive specials. Though why you reverted these initially I don't know ... and this is what I've observed before, is you have a revert first, and ask questions later attitude. You know, it's not necessary for you to approve every edit to articles in this topic area.
You note that you are not prepared to have a civil discussion. Why even have a discussion at all - it can be accomplished without you. You don't need to continually weigh in on every issue related to list of episodes. Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Alex here—the current version of the 2022 specials and 2023 specials (and series 14, FWIW) makes the most sense in terms of production, promotion, and release—and I reject the claims of OWN. A user frequently editing and participating in talk page discussions is not a sign of ownership; all it proves is that Alex is an active participant. We've had several discussions and disagreements over the years, and he often concedes to others despite probably disagreeing with the changes personally—that's a collaborator, not an owner. And the fact that several other editors above also appear to disagree with your points demonstrates that Alex's edits are backed by consensus. While you reserve the right to identify ownership issues you consider legitimate, IMO this accusation is fruitless and only serves to derail your own discussion. – Rhain☔ (he/him) 00:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree too about the merge - which is why I've neither suggested or proposed changing it. But I feel there's a lot of unnecessary hostility and BLUDGEONing to a simple discussion. And rather odd false claims. And various other inconsistencies in various articles. Nfitz (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
When/If you would like to return to discussing the content, rather than conduct, I'll be happy to oblige. Until then, I look forward to your apology re: the accusation. -- Alex_21TALK06:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
That's fine - it would be a nice for a change for you not to last-word every comment made - even when no proposal is on the table! Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Dictating who can and cannot contribute to a discussion, despite how active they are in the WikiProject and encyclopedia itself, is textbook OWN; I'd be careful of WP:BOOMERANG if I were you, Nfitz. -- Alex_21TALK21:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think popping in every year or two, having one idea, and not stalking the place day and night qualifies as OWN. Good grief, I literally didn't even propose anything in this thread!! Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
2022 specials, 2023 Anniversary specials, 2023 Christmas special, and Series 14
Let's see if we can move back to the discussion on content, and summarize what's happened in the above two discussions. That way, in the case this sort of discussion happens again, we can directly quote it. (I'm just trying to do this solely for the ease of other editors, having been a regular member on WP:DW for years, and on Wiki for almost ten.)
The classic era is pretty clear-cut in what episodes belong to what season, based on reliable sources, especially given that there was only one special released in 26 years, meaning every other episode actually "belongs" to a season.
The 2008–10, 2013 and 2022 specials were all intended to be "bridging" (or celebration) specials between separate series, and that's why they have their own articles, instead of being specials merged into a series article.
Individual specials (outside of the above specials articles) have, for the most part, been included with the series in which they were included on home media boxsets; this was the general consensus given that specials in the revived-era don't actually "belong" to a particular series.
Due to significant changes in home media release and production timings in the Chibnall era, this consensus was updated to include specials with their production series solely from the Chibnall era.
The 2023 anniversary specials are also a form of "bridging" specials, between Whittaker's final episodes and Ncuti's initial episodes, and are being marketed as their own separate event. This is why the 2023 Christmas special is not included with it; it is not a part of the 60th anniversary specials. There is agreement, however, that this article could be modified as we approach the 60th anniversary. (They are also a completely separate production from the 2022 specials.)
Therefore, the 2023 anniversary specials article resides at its current location due to WP:NCTV guidelines, but this could be up for discussion.
As the 2023 Christmas special has, for obvious reasons, not yet been included in a boxset release, it has been included with Series 14 due to being produced alongside the series.
I'm of the opinion that the article name for the 2023 specials could be clearer - but there's NORUSH, and we'd be better to see what it's all about and when it's released, before going through multiple iterations. 13:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)
Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on Wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the guy who nominated all of this.
Let me just say that informing WikiProject Doctor Who completely slipped my mind when doing this. I really should have notified this group in advance, and for that, I'm very sorry, especially since this has probably caused some problems for you all.
As for my rationale: The articles I've nominated are all elements that are, for the most part, very easy to consider as not notable. A few of them are debatable (Namely Borusa, Ben and Polly, and Turlough, as examples) but I tried to keep it towards articles that reeked of CRUFT or otherwise lacked any potential sources that would establish notability.
However, I will say that it was very irresponsible of me to nominate so many articles at once. I've begun to withdraw some nominations. I'll probably put them up again at a future date, but for now, I've realized that putting so many up is going to be a significant waste of time for those who look through AfDs. Again, I'm incredibly sorry about the mess I've caused. It was highly irresponsible of me, and I seek not to do something like this if I put those articles up for deletion again in the future. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The nudge to reassess these articles is welcome, in my opinion, though a group nomination for those with the same rationale (no sources, not notable) may have been advisable to reduce the burden. I wouldn't object to you revisiting in the future. U-Mos (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I thought this note would prompt editors who are knowledgeable about this TV series to participate in these deletion discussions but so far, I just see the editors who regularly participate in AFDs voicing their opinions. You know these discussions typically last just a week and then they are closed. So far, the general feeling is that most of these articles will be redirected or merged. Just thought I'd give you an update. LizRead!Talk!06:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Some merging into lists of characters and such (with narrowly targeted redirects) is probably a good idea in many of these cases, though some obviously clear the notability hurdle and will not be deleted or merged away (e.g. Turlough). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
A while ago, I made some edits to the Auton article in order to improve it, but one section I was confused about was the "Other Uses" section. It references usages of the term "Auton," but are these proper references to the monsters themselves, or just unrelated references to terms with the same name?
I bring this up here solely because I ask if someone more knowledgeable than me happens to know the truth, in this case. I brought it up on the talk page for Autons ages ago, but haven't gotten a reply yet. I wished to sort this out, because it's very original research-y if these are just random uses of similar words instead of outright references, and I would have to remove it in that case. I wish to make sure I'm not deleting anything actually referencing them before I do. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. I was going to remove it myself, but I was just waiting to see if there was any other input in advance. Thank you for removing it. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}