Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 37

Per the Lost in Time AfD discusion earlier on this talk page, I am notifying the WikiProject of several ongoing AfDs for the characters of the Autons, Sergeant Benton, Mike Yates, and Vislor Turlough. Any input in these discussions is appreciated. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have sent Death's Hand to AFD and am considered sending Kroton (Cyberman) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Going slow with the AfD nominations would be good in my view, to give interested participants enough time to provide informed opinions. Daranios (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Primarily why I stopped after Turlough even though there's a few more articles I'm suspect of. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

So while searching for possible GA topics I remembered Community did a few Doctor Who parodies and was wondering if they would fall under the scope of WP:DRWHO

• Biology 101 introduces the gag in the episodes b plot.
• Regional Holiday Music a inspector spacetime appears in the end tag (already GA)
• Conventions of Space and Time they go to a fan convention, if any of these would make the cut than it's this one.

Any thoughts? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of spoofs of Doctor Who. Milo Murphy's Law for instance has several episodes and whole characters dedicated to theirs. I'm not sure if these ones are noteworthy enough to warrant our involvement due to how many there are, so I'll leave that up to the others to figure out. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

the difference here is as far as I am aware the only spoofs that are notable to warrent their own articles are Curse of the Fatal Death (which was offically licensed) and the Community episodes. Regardless I do have plans to work on "Conventions in Space and Time" anyways Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No, they would not. This is trainspotting. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was looking over some the list and reliesed if we can get two more GAs by the end of the year we will have had our second most GAs in a year with 21. Beating 2012 (36) may be out of reach as it would require significantly more planning and strategy and suitable writing topics. And to be fair 2012 did have some reviews that possibly may not have been up to code Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm working on Last Christmas (as there is going to be a Christmas DYK set), so I'll probably review one after that's done; those could be our two reviews. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I can take on one of the reviews later today. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pokelego999 and OlifanofmrTennant: I was wondering, given that we all are actively editing- I could review the 2022 specials and Pokelego999 could review series 14. We would just have series 13 and the list left then, which are both being worked on, and series 15, which would just need to be peer-reviewed due to it being inherently unstable pre-broadcast. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we just have to wait on S15 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be around August/September 2025 by the time we have enough info for that to be a GA, by which time series 16 would probably already be in mainspace. We could restrict the topic to broadcasted series perhaps, or peer review it per WP:GT?#3c, as is suggested on the goals page. But we can decide on that later when the remaining 3.5 articles and lists get reviewed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be down to review Series 14 Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We did it! Now all we have to do to beat 2012 is pay off some reviewers Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically, if we really wanted to beat 2012, we could try to get four people to commit to nominating one GA a month. We can't necessarily it would work if the reviews don't get picked up, but if successful we'd have 48 new GA's by the end of the year. Some may even be able to help out reviewing the other nominations, like we did here. You mentioned needing suitable writing topics but we have plenty of suggestions over at WP:WHO/G, we could just let people write over whatever they wanted to (episodes, characters, season/series, etc). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be down to contribute to this goal. I already tend to pump out some content for the Project as is, so making it a consistent goal would be good to aim for. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If this absolutely insane idea were to occur then maybe we could shoot for a "get X amount of articles to B class or better" that some other projects do. But I would like to reiterate the sheer scale of the idea is doomed to fail. On the other hand it would be very funny. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I feel just keeping to this kind of "48 GAs" minimum is a good goal for now. We're a smaller project, and we only have under ten active members. We shouldn't push ourselves too hard, or we may risk losing motivation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

How about a bunch of goals with this being the last or second last milestone? Something like get Doctor Who (back) to FA, being the last goal? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I fear this may lead to the bar being rasied a little too high. I think 48 GAs itself is an insane goal. Looking at the options it may be doable. Earlier in the year was basiclly did a GAN a week. Assuming nothing gets reviewed we already have 6 GANs in the can and we could make use of the Wikipedia:Good article review circles. Once again this is a crazy stupid idea that is both crazy and stupid and I'm all in

F it, we ball! I'm all in too, let's make it 50 for the year-there are no downsides, as even at the worst, we will end up with a ton of new good articles. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a bit of a question. Long story short, a lot of the Big Finish audio dramas have been nominated at AfD. So far I've yet to see a single one that is individually notable from the main parent series.

I was wondering if it would be possible to come to a consensus on this page as far as these entries go. By this I mean that if the individual entries are obviously non-notable (by Wikipedia's standards), we would just redirect them to the main series article and clear out the circular redirect.

My main concern here is that the AfDs are kind of time consuming on their own and have been getting lower participation lately. Mass nominations are a possibility, but I know those run the risk of having even lower participation and an influx of people who just don't like mass nominations of anything. I think if we have a consensus here, we could probably use that to prevent people from re-creating the articles without showing how they pass GNG/NBOOK.

Thoughts? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm not on as frequently as I once was (so I may not respond as quickly as I once would) but I will make sure to keep checking in! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack we've been working to address this issue for a while now since it's come to our attention. Right now we're working through the non-notable novels of the series, with future plans to assess audio dramas.

I do feel it would be good to maybe try making a revamped style/notability guide for the franchise's many aspects at some point, but for now I do feel planning for trying to get rid of a lot of the non-notable articles is best saved for once our novel issue is out of the way. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: the only ones I believe may be notable are Doctor Who and the Pirates, Spare Parts (audio drama), and Sirens of Time. I hesitate to do a mass nomination because they could be more out there Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Sirens I do believe it is notable but to call the page a mess would be a compliment. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

ReaderofthePack, as Pokelego and Olivia said, we have been focusing on novels and their notability or lack of it right now. If you think something might be non-controversial, you should do a WP:Before and if nothing comes up, you can WP:BLAR it, no need for AfD in non-controversial articles. We will get to the audio dramas too, but there is a lot to go through. Do however much you can and like, every bit obviously helps. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Many episodes of the series use fair use images for adaptations of the episode, such as book or audiobook adaptations. Do these cover works fall under fair use? They aren't necessary to understanding the article subject, and can be considered superfluous as a result. I'm unaware of any policy that requires an image to be placed for them, so I would like to see if there's a consensus on whether they should be kept or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It depends entirely on any justification within their non-free use rationales and whether the article has any commentary on the cover art itself. If the only point of the cover art is simply to show the cover, then there's likely no reason to keep it, per MOS:TVIMAGE. Essentially, we should just follow the last paragraph at WP:VGBOX (but for television instead of video games). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

So interestingly we are on pace to beat 2012 in terms of GAs, 2012 had 37 GAs and so far 2025 has had 9. Assuming we don't promote anything else in January (unlikely) and keep up this pace (unlikelyer), that's 108 GAs. We would end the year with over 250 GAs. Just an interesting note Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21: made mass changes to episode articles by removing links to minisodes and removing them from the Doctor Who episodes template. As far as I can tell this change was not discussed anywhere. This effected (by my count) around 100 articles, a change of this size should be discussed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Are the minisodes broadcast episodes? Have I completely removed them, or have I moved them to {{Doctor Who supplementary episodes}}? (Also, by my count, it affected was 44 articles; 22 concerning the infobox, and 22 updating the episodes to supplementary episodes.) Stating that edits must be discussed by you to be accepted is also a very concerning development. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Grow a thick skin. U-Mos (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Valid, thanks. I know my edits are fine. Moving on. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is your response to everything basically- "my edits are fine, yours are not. Collaboration- what is that, gatekeeping and being passive agressive is the best". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Visit my talk page if you'd like to talk conduct. Let's talk content. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You’re not counting all the episode article. I am perfectly fine with you making the supplementary box what the problme is the infobox changes. Some of the minisodes were broadcast like Space and Time and Time Crash Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I edited 22 episode articles. Counted them myself. I'm glad you're perfecly fine with it. If supplementary mini-episodes need listing in infoboxes, then 1) why are they not listed at the primary episode articles, and 2) why are all of the supplementary mini-episodes not listed in the infoboxes? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussed with other editors, not just her- you will see that her msg didn't say "with me"? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that 26 March would mark 20 years since Doctor Who came back, I was thinking that we could try to get revival related pages on the Main Page on or near that date. List of Doctor Who episodes (2005-present) is at FLC, so I'll nom it for TFL- but perhaps we can fix any issues in Russell T Davies (it's a 13 year old FA) to nom it for TFA, and perhaps we can improve Christopher Eccleston and/or Billie Piper to GA for DYK? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think maybe we could get series 1 to OTD. like "Doctor Who returns after a 16 year hiatus Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: I'd be down to work on Eccelston (40 interwikis on a GA is 91 points). Though getting it to DYK would be unlikely in with a three-month deadline Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Piper also has 31 interwiki which would be a chunk towards bonus points. If both are promoted to GA within a short period of time it could make for a multi-hook nomination. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

True, but we can still try, no loss in trying. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought so too, but it usually shows big events in history- I don't think Doctor Who returning would be big enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In 2023 An Unearthly Child was featured so its not out of the realm of possibility Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let's try that too- it would be great to have even more visibility on the main page. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

How about you tackle Piper and I tackle Ecceleston? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might go faster if we chose only one of them to improve? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: Not sure if we're still trying to maximize main page content for the week mentioned? I noticed you suggested the LoE 2005 revival for the Monday before the anniversary. I plugged in the Torchwood LoE page for the following Friday. Assuming both get approved (I'm honestly not sure if they prevent similar content from appearing too close together there like they do at TFA), we'll have commandeered both TFL spots for that week. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will get approved, but that would be very cool. Oli is working on Eccleston, I think, I'll help there. And also try to get it on 'On this day'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting that List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) passed the FL review, as the 2022 specials still needs an alternate source. The article is missing content, has issues with its table widths, and now has unsourced content in its average AI. Could this be fixed ASAP? Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking for them. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find anything despite having checked through the last 30 issues of DWM. Given that it's unsourced, I have commented it out of the table for the time being. The "missing" content was probably never released by the BBC, what can I say. I cannot see the issues affecting anything, the table looks normal. If you have issues with its FL status due to any of this, you can bring it to the talk page of WP:FL. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for checking! That's a lot of DWM's to check! I've already explained what the HTML/CSS formatting issue with the table is, so now that the FLC has passed, I'll go ahead and reintroduce that column so we can have correctly-formatted tables and sourced data. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it was hard going through all those-the way Chibnall transitioned to Davies made it such that they mostly only gave info about Tenannt and Ncuti. I would say you shouldn't add back DWM, but I don't care much either way, as long as no one complains at WP:FL or something. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you should re-added it just because the FLC passed, seems somewhat like WP:GAME Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not what GAME is, but thank you for the opinion. If there's no complaints, happy to have complete information. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Somewhat seems like WP:BADFAITHNEG, removing the info and then adding it back after the FLC passed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Oli. I removed no such info nor took part in any such discussion. Unless you have an alternate idea to fix the faulty content? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A great idea to fix the faulty content-force the BBC to release the info officially, given that it was already leaked "unofficially".

You also took no part in saying anything to the contrary, when you know that was a concern, and my having said that I did that, on the talk page of the list, which I pinged you in. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You pinged me in a discussion? News to me. A great idea to fix faulty HTML/CSS is to not make it the table code inaccessible in the first place. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking about changing the code to try to make it fill up the space. But I didn't want to argue with you for the changes, especially when I don't even know/see what actual changes it actually did, bcs thr table looks the same to me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Another editor seems to have fixed that mistake as well, so all is well now! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rhain thank you. If only someone could have explained what issues were happening bcs of it, I would have fixed it myself. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Is CultBox reliable guys? I have only seen 2-3 writer names there, they don't have a "About Us" page, or barely any other social media, and it seems to be a blog. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As someone who's used it quite a bit in DW related articles, I have no question to its reliability. I can't speak to its back end processes or editorial standards, though. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have doubts regarding its reliability. It essentially appears to be an entertainment blog, with no obvious editorial policy or oversight, and no list of writers. It seems like a great aggregator of information from other sources (Doctor Who Magazine, radio and television interviews, etc.), but I would be cautious about using it too much as an immediate source on Wikipedia. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Its info seems accurate and I don't doubt its authenticity, but without any ability to verify that, we can't really in good conscience use it as a source. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

When I mentioned the reliability, I strictly meant that what they say typically ends up panning out. I understand however, and do share, the potential concerns about it's lack of editorial standards (the FAQ page seems to suggest that you can write for the page by filling out their contact form). The website's favicon is also the WP:WORDPRESS logo, and the fact that some of it's aggregation information (as mentioned above) are from unverified Twitter accounts, which could cause further concerns.

I feel it's also worth noting that depreciating this source would likely take some time as I believe it's more widely used than Doctor Who News, which we've been depreciating since earlier this year. A lot of the information we do use this source for (filming blocks, directors, filming locations, etc.) is published elsewhere less frequently. Not saying we shouldn't depreciate just based on that, just that it's something to plan for. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking more that we do not use CultBox as a source from now on- I have made edits on past episode articles, and alternate sources are usually present, though sometimes difficult to find. Discontinuing it would help in not having to replace it again and again. Another reason I asked about it is because if CultBox is determined as un-reliable, it would be easier to remove if alternate refs are already present, instead of being added alongside it. The info is correct, so it can stay until it is gradually removed, just like DWN. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

F, should have waited a few more days it seems, it's info is always reliable enough, just not the editorial reliablity. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Kind of an aside yet sort of related question: should we include a disclaimer in our suggested sources bank discouraging the use of certain sources? Primarily fansites (Like Doctor Who TV) and blogs (Such as Cultbox, which seems to have an unreliable consensus so far). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should, as well as update the style guide too, would be helpful to link to if some new editor tries to add these sources. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

"Make sure to avoid using content from user-generated websites, such as fansites like Doctor Who TV, which has content generated entirely by fans with no form of credentials, and blogs from websites such as CultBox, which are personal opinions of the authors, who may or may not have credentials. Content from these websites written by authors who can be verified as having experience, whether that be by being a journalist, a known academic or by being a topic expert, are permitted to be used on a case by case basis."

Would this be good to add? I believe we've settled that CultBox is unreliable for now, so unless there's any objections, I feel it's best we leave it at that and work to remove CultBox sources from articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no issues with the proposed wording. The only thing I might suggest is noting the distinction between doctorwho.tv and doctorwhotv.co.uk. As I said on the series 14 review page, both websites typically list "Doctor Who TV" as the |work=. The former is acceptable as a primary source while the latter isn't. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Maybe something like "like Doctor Who TV (not to be confused with the official website)" in a hyperlink. Alternatively, we can swap a different fansite in, like Blogtor Who or smth similar. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be fine with either or both of those sections. I don't see the harm in listing more than one fansite, honestly. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What an unfortunate situation and removal of sourced content. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a shame because I appreciate CultBox's coverage and think they do a good job, but their standards are just not enough for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the side of it being reliable, as nothing has proved it otherwise, that must have been a miscommunication. I don't think I've seen a single policy quoted in this discussion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NOTRELIABLE: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." (Key bit here is the lack of editorial oversight, due to a lack of notable editorial policies on the site). As this appears to be a blog site, it also falls under Wikipedia:SELFPUB. This technically isn't the same thing, but even if we were to deem the CultBox brand name reliable, it would still fail Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG due to not having professional writers. Let me know if I'm incorrect in any assessment here and I'll correct my argument. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That makes it questionable, not unreliable, and it's far from self-published, as that refers to work that is (evidentally titled) published about themselves.

I recognize the consensus here, but my view is simply that this WikiProject is causing its own eventual doom on creating future articles. If you find yourself relying on only "official" sources, I wish everyone the best in developing articles concerning anything behind-the-scenes. Series 16 (Season 3, 2026) may be a very short article indeed.

All the best! -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

All guidelines discussing questionable sources state that sources that are questionable should not be used, with very few exceptions. If there's reasonable doubt as to our ability to use the source, then it's better that we don't use it at all.

Also, how is this "causing eventual doom"? We have a bevy of reliable sources (Radio Times, Den of Geek, Digital Spy, The Guardian, IGN, Total Film, and a large number more). Removing a few unreliable sources keeps us functioning within Wikipedia guidelines, and is far from removing our Behind the Scenes coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

An example I'm curious about, the Audience Index scores sourced through Doctor Who TV. What's the plan with that, now that the source is "unreliable"? Keep it unsourced, or mass remove important content? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure myself since I was barely involved with that discussion, but if the info can't be sourced, it can't be sourced. That's about as plain and simple as it gets. Remove unsourced content and find replacements where feasible. If the information doesn't exist outside of unreliable sources, then there's not much can be done. I am uncertain what replacements exist since, again, I was not involved much with that discussion, but I'm sure someone else involved more with it can give a more concrete answer than me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

How very unfortunate of this WikiProject. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Those last few lines read rather passive aggressive Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that contribution here, it added a lot. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that it's disappointing the source has been determined to be unsuitable for use, as well as that it may lead to the removal of content. I mentioned both of these things in my original response above. However, and more importantly, we are providing a disservice to our readers by using sources that aren't up to par.

"it's far from self-published, as that refers to work that is (evidentally titled) published about themselves." - is also an incorrect assessment. Wikipedia's articles on self-publishing even states that it is the publication of media by its author at their own cost, without the involvement of a publisher. The term usually refers to written media, such as books and magazines, either as an ebook or as a physical copy using print on demand technology. It may also apply to albums, pamphlets, brochures, games, video content, artwork, and zines. Web fiction is also a major medium for self-publishing. Self-publishing merely means that it's published by the author, not that it's about the author. This differs from an author writing for say Radio Times, where it's published by someone other than the author. Even if said wrote an autobiography for Radio Times, it still wouldn't be "self-published". TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We're using actual Wikipedia articles as definitions of policies now? How unfortunate. The removal of relevant content will continue to prove detrimental, but "providing a disservice" does seem to be the consensus here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want other sources, Merriam-Webster defines it as "to publish (a book) using the author's own resources", while the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "to arrange and pay for your own book to be published, rather than having it done by a publisher". This is a pretty clear-cut definition all things considered. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not, while I may be misinterpreting it, I believe that WP:SPS confirms my understanding of it, I just felt the Wikipedia article provided an easier to understand definition. WP:SPS is a policy and it says "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." Nowhere does it say that self-published sources only consist of autobiographies, because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I'd like to again note how WP:WORDPRESS links to the aforementioned policy and that CultBox's favicon is the Wordpress logo. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The AI has not been released for series 14 wasn't released on the Doctor Who fan site either though. And as for CultBox- the sources are either given, or are tweets or photos from the official channel, or by fans. You are acting as though CultBox creates info of its own, whereas we would just need to go one source deeper in most cases. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion about CultBox on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, y'all can give your thoughts there too, for a wider community consensus instead of just a local one, because it seems a wider consensus might be added. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The Sarah Jane Adventures 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There are discussions relevant to this WikiProject on WP:RS/N on the reliability of Cultbox and Doctor Who News Page. You can read the discussion and provide opinions in order to achieve and strengthen consensus as regarding this pages. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the direction the doctor who news page discussion is going, of it being declared unreliable for the second time at rs/n- can we add a comment to the series 15 and any subsequent series article to not add dwn links to the appreciation index until the bbc releases it officially? DWF91 (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd wait for final consensus for now. If final consensus determines it unreliable, then a note wouldn't be a bad idea. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the consensus to form- I just asked this now, bcs the prev discussion on it at rs/n said the same things, and the wikiproject takes some time to come to a conclusion/consensus due partially to our low numbers here. DWF91 (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have "The Big Finish Companion Volume 1" by Richard Dinnick? I need a source to cite the directors at The Monthly Adventures articles, and said book has the info for every story until 2010. DWF91 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A file pertaining to this WikiProject, File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg, was listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion and add your opinion on the matter. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the above file has been closed as delete; see the policy reasoning as to why. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting this discussion, another editor has put up four files for discussion. DWF91 (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict-changed text of this message, the reply was to the original message) Question- does anyone think we should add that WP:Civil POV pushing is prevalent on this WikiProject somewhere on WP:DRWHO (a lot of time from editors that are not part of the active members), to not unintentionally frustrate newer editors. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This isn't productive. You've had a disagreement with another editor. This is bordering on personal attacks. You're frustrated and that's fine, but there are ways to engage in disputes productively (dispute resolution, compromise ...). I see you've opened a community discussion on CultBox, which is a decent step. Overall, I suggest taking a step back – it's a small disagreement on a small bit of content on Wikipedia. I'm not one to say "it's not that deep", but it is worth stepping back and reflecting.

If it helps, think of it like this: if the McPherson claim is untrue, it will be changed in due course and will be a firm bit of evidence against CB as a reliable source. If it is true then the page had accurate information from the start, so no harm done. Irltoad (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the text to remove the examples I gave, now it's just a question about opposing CPP in general.

We already have a consensus against cultbox. The McPherson claim is presented as true, not as rumour- articlespace shouldn't have inaccurate text in order to prove that a ref might or might not be correct. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Just an update, the McPherson claim did not prove to be untrue. The page did indeed contain accurate information. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I initially brought up a question regarding this on the Wikimedia Discord before bringing it here, since I felt this discussion was warranted in the main project space. Alien species, unlike characters, follow their species names; however, many of these aliens are referred to in their articles with the singular name (I.e, Dalek, Cyberman, etc). However, this is not how they're often referred to. In sources, they're often discussed in the plural, since these species often return as groups (For instance, I've been researching the Cybermen, and most sources discussing the Cybermen discuss them as a collective, aka "the Cybermen", and not as an individual, such as "Cyberman"). Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, I feel the species, given them being more frequently referred to with plurals in coverage, should use their pluralized names in the titles instead of the singular. I also wanted to bring this up since Silence (Doctor Who) use the plural name for the species, and not the singular, and if singular names are to be the standard, that title should be shifted to "Silent".

For species, this would affect the articles Dalek, Cyberman, Weeping Angel, Sontaran, Ice Warrior, Mechonoid, and Silurian and Sea Devil. The other monster articles (Ood, Voord, Slitheen) have the same name for the singular or plural, or, in the case of Silence (Doctor Who), use the plural form in the title. I'd say at the very least that the Cybermen should have their name shifted, since these guys have an actually different name that isn't just slapping an S at the end when pluralized and is near unanimously used in sources discussing the species, even when only one is present. Please let me know your thoughts, as well this isn't a pressing issue, I did want to get some consensus on a standard for this going forward. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it would depend on context. Looking at a non-fictional context, real species such as Gorillas, Ducks, Neandathals are referred to in the singular in article titles, but as plurals when referring to them as a group. I think it's right therefore that articles say "The Daleks did x" and "The Cybermen did y" but the articles are Dalek and Cyberman. Rankersbo (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Posting here from Talk:Doctor Who series 15 as well. A source we need to be on the lookout for are what episodes in Series 15 (Season 2, 2025) constitute what blocks for Block 4 onwards. Normally we have this information now, and filming is (obviously) far completed, but they're still listed as TBA in Filming. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Silencedoc Bringing this here to allow wider discussion. I don't think it's a good idea to use of composite image of the three iterations of the Rani at that article, at least at the current moment. Firstly, three portrait images means the individual images are very small in size. A more minor aesthetic point is that it places the Mrs Flood/Dobson version of the character in the centre, when she's likely to be a more secondary version of the character to Panjabi's principle, from what we've seen so far.

Additionally, there's a relevance issue here. O'Mara's Rani has been the only screen version for decades, and as of now we have another version appearing under an alias, and a third version who has appeared in one scene. Likely to change, of course, but there's WP:NORUSH. As the current article is almost entirely about O'Mara's version of the character, it makes sense at this point for an image of the two new Ranis to accompany the section about them, as I have suggested.

Most importantly, there's a rights issue. All three images are publicity shots, so even the O'Mara one should really be replaced by a suitable screenshot. Using it in a new composite image alongside two other copyrighted images compounds the existing problem. And for illustrative purposes, it is preferable to have an image of Dobson's Rani as the Rani, rather than while masquerading as Mrs Flood. It's likely a suitable screenshot image of Dobson and Panjabi together will present itself in the two episodes to come, which would be ideal for that section.

I can't figure out how we're able to accept publicity shots of (e.g.) Fifth Doctor while having to settle with the absolute travesty at Tenth Doctor (as opposed to literally any still from any episode??), so maybe there's a wider issue here or something in the fair use policy I'm not understanding. I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts. U-Mos (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to multiple images for the Rani given we do the same at The Master (Doctor Who) and The Doctor since each incarnation is a notable, differing depiction of the character that we don't have free use for. I agree with the NORUSH sentiment, and I do feel it'd be better off in the article body than the lead given that, unlike the Master, the Rani's only had one unique casting change (Technically two, but they're both in the same series), so including the change in the body would make sense instead of cramming the lead. This might be a decent photo of both together if you crop Conrad out, and there's also a photo here that can be used.

Publicity shots are only used when there are no free images available. In Davison's case, we don't have any free use images of the character bar his costume, which isn't helpful for identifying him. With Tennant, we have photos of him in character as the Doctor that are free to use, so even if they're shit compared to a publicity photo, they should still be used instead of non-free media. This was decided at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_February_7#File:Twelfth_Doctor_(Doctor_Who).jpg, and the standard has been applied wherever possible. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I was under the impression too that, where no free image exists, a screenshot (being only part of a non-free work) is preferable to a publicity photo (the entirety of a non-free work). Is that not the case? U-Mos (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm unaware of such a stipulation, so I'm afraid I can't really speak on it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I've been steered by the prompts when uploading images, which for copyrighted artwork/photography stipulates that the discussion is about the photograph or painting as such, as a creative work, not just about the thing or person it shows – unlikely in these cases, so would have to be uploaded under the "other" category. Whereas screenshots are directly an excerpt from a copyrighted work, e.g. a screenshot from a movie or TV programme, a panel from a comic, or a sound sample from a song, so has a natural fit in one of the given categories. U-Mos (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the full res of the second image option linked above, if needed (I know we still need to reduce to the minimum pixels required, but probably better to start with an image that's not already half cropped by a headline).

I see that it was linked in the deletion discussion mentioned above, but NFCCP#1 is the relevant policy here. I believe that Fourteenth Doctor also had an edit war at one point, for people preferring the publicity photo over the YouTube CC screenshot.

As for I was under the impression too that, where no free image exists, a screenshot (being only part of a non-free work) is preferable to a publicity photo (the entirety of a non-free work): I also don't believe this is a preference, but there is NFCCP#3(b) which says "Minimal portion: An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." and I can see how that could potentially be interpreted as a preference for one over the other. However, if applying the policy to this case, I believe it was more meant along the lines that if the publicity photo I linked is used, we should crop off the sides to only contain the characters. In this case, no context to the reader is lost by doing so, since the article is about the characters and not the room they're in (or even extending that to the set in which the episode takes place). TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@TDW, I don't see the need to include both of them (considering they are the same person) in a single promotional photo. If you click on the link i used, you will see that this is the first image available of Anita Dobson as Mrs Flood. Just like Derek Jacob (who was also a disguise) and the Fourteenth Doctor, I believe that Mrs Flood deserves a special mention of her own. ?Silencedoc¿ 22:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I neither intended to support or oppose the use of any specific image in my response. I was merely just providing a better link to one of the options already proposed by someone else above, and attempting to explain the NFCCP. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Silencedoc Are you happy with the suggestion to use the new image of both Mrs Flood and the Rani in the body of the article, and keep O'Mara in the infobox? U-Mos (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@TedEdwards Apologies for not making clear on the article that this discussion was in place - I see you have made some changes similar, but different, to the current suggestion here. I am keen that the original image of O'Mara is not bot deleted as an orphan if there's a chance it will still be in use going forward (but recognise that the now-current version resolves a lot of my above concerns) so would value your input. U-Mos (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the longstanding image of O'Mara should be in the infobox, with the single image of Panjabi and Dobson in the Revival section. The O'Mara incarnation has been the primary for many, many years, and the new versions have been around for five minutes. Also I get the impression from edit summaries and this discussion that editors may be looking to The Doctor and The Master for guidance of how to handle images in The Rani. But those characters are special cases, with a lot of performers, and collages seem the only efficient way to cover them all. Actually, combining multiple images in that way is problematic for NFCC, but I'm assuming it has been discussed in the past; in any case I'm not going to call attention to it. As far as I know, there is no difference between screenshots and promotional images in terms of fair use; in practice it tends to be just preference/consistency for a given medium/franchise/series, etc. If anything, I would say promotional images are better because they are intended for distribution as opposed to screencaps of the copyrighted work, but honestly the guideline makes no distinction.— TAnthony^Talk 14:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I would also add that the idea that promotional images are "entire" works and screenshots are "excerpts" is an overinterpretation. Both are simply copyrighted images. The point of NFCCP#3(b) is to evoke fair use of copyrighted work as minimally as possible, as in using one photo instead of three, or a still photo from a film rather than a video clip of the whole thing.— TAnthony^Talk 14:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi U-Mos, thank you for notifying me of this discussion. To explain in more detail the motivation for my edit, I did it based on the sentiment of WP:NFCC#3a, that is Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. I felt that since images of Panjabi and Dobson in character together would and do exist, Wikpedia must use one of those. While this was the consideration I made at the time, I also hear the arguments about three image having to be unwieldlingly small, which is slightly mitigated if there were only two. I don't see how publicity photos are more problematic than screenshots, since both are copyrighted and therefore both have similar legal restrictions on use (although I have no objection to screenshots per se).

Regarding the future of the original O'Mara image, it will be at least a week before it would be deleted, since it has not been tagged yet. Also editors will still have an idea of what the image looked like, so we can still discuss it, as long as editors have downloaded the image beforehand (I did so to create the current composite image).

I have no qualms with using only one image for the infobox and another later on, but we do need to ensure that the same image is not used twice, since this would probably not be fair use.

As a final point, I have just noticed I could have cropped the O'Mara image slightly, which I didn't. --TedEdwards 14:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: @U-Mos, Pokelego999, TheDoctorWho, Silencedoc, and TAnthony:, I'm just pinging you all in case you had forgetten this discussion was happening and wanted to continue with it. If so, would it be a good idea to put a link on the relevant file page and article? --TedEdwards 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems like Vindicator (Dr. Who) should redirect somewhere; what would be a good target? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

If it's necessary, Doctor Who series 15 would likely be the best option given it's a recurring element throughout the series. Noting that it should be Vindicator (Doctor Who) either instead of, or on top of, the link above. This would align with the deletion of List of Doctor Who items where relevant items were redirected to the related character/episode/seasons. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

But "Vindicator" is not mentioned on the S.15 article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

In a perfect world, it probably should be discussed there, perhaps in the writing section? I do have plans on bringing that up to GA standards after the season is over, and can add including a mention of it on my to do list. It may be several weeks, though. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

For now I think the term should be redirected to the episode "Interstellar Song Contest", which contains a description of what it is and its relevance to the plot.— TAnthony^Talk 17:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Done, for both forms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Could someone help find a consensus for "Bad Wolf Studio Tour with Varada Sethu"'status as an episode of Access All Areas please? Spectritus (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

We don't "find" a consensus. Do you have a source stating that they are the same show? Present that, then we can move from there. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, the video is called "Access All Areas: Bad Wolf Studio Tour with Varada Sethu". Spectritus (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what I asked. I asked if you have a source stating that they are the same show. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The video is literally called Access All Areas. And the TARDIS Wiki considers it the same series. And there's this Bluesky post: https://bsky.app/profile/whoniversenews.bsky.social/post/3lq3slz45ak2q Spectritus (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

None of these are good sources. They have made one video at the tail-end of a series that is titled the same as a previous aftershow series; the content and format is entirely different, even in the unlikely event that it becomes a regular video series. U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

We also have two entries within the Whoniverse called "Empire of Death" (an episode and a novel), and they're completely unrelated. In the same vein, being called "Access All Areas" is irrelevant. If you don't have a reliable source (not a fan page!) proving "Access All Areas has continued with Series 15/Season 2..." -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You have a point. Spectritus (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is |script_editor= really necessary in {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}? Director, writer, producers, executive producer, they all have notability. What notability does the script editor provide? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

According to the literature, script editors were part of the "showrunner" team in the classic series: e.g. Barry Letts/Terrance Dicks, JNT/Eric Saward, JNT/Andrew Cartmel, etc. DonQuixote (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. So, there's not really a use for it in the Revived and Disney eras then? -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree: very notable and important to retain in the infobox for the classic era, far less so and redundant for the infobox 2005 onwards. U-Mos (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

In the original run from 1963 to 1989, the script editor (initially known as the story editor) was one of two permanent staff in the Doctor Who office at the BBC, the other being the producer. The story editor was responsible for commissioning and selecting scripts, with a view to ensuring a variety of stories. This was among other tasks such as making or suggesting amendments. Other important tasks - such as director, designer etc. - were appointed by the producer on a per-story basis. The first story editor was David Whitaker, who had the post from 24 June 1963 until at least 28 September 1964. There are lists at the back of books such as Howe, David J.; Stammers, Mark; Walker, Stephen James (1994). Doctor Who The Handbook - The First Doctor. London: Doctor Who Books. ISBN 0-426-20430-1.

In the revived series, from 2004 on, the Executive Producer combined in one job (shared by two or three permanent staff) the former roles of the producer and script editor. So think in terms of Russell T Davies or Julie Gardner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

So my understanding from List of Doctor Who script editors is that they are in no way a senior member of the production but rather liasons between writing and production, which seems to align with what others are saying here. In the article I linked, it has Helen Raynor saying that it's not even a creative role. So I would say to you Alex 21 that your best bet is to remove the script editor from some of the more recent articles first (as WP:BOLD edits), with an intent to remove all of them up to 2005. That way, if someone comes up with a good reason to keep them (I think you can safely ignore the inevitable editor who makes a WP:OTHERCONTENT fallacy) we can with minimal effort. But my thinking is that the infobox should only include the most senior crew members and I think you agree. --TedEdwards 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you everyone for your replies; I feel like there's a sense of agreement here concerning the importance of the script editor. I'll go through and remove them from the Revived and Disney era articles, but definitely keep them in Classic articles, and see how we go from there. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done There was no kickback when I manually removed the parameters for Series 1-4, so I've gone ahead and done so for the rest of the Revived and Disney era episodes. (Oops, I just realized that I was meant to do that in reverse order, newest to oldest. My bad, it's finished now.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I was meant to do that in reverse order, newest to oldest—people assume that time is a strict progression from cause to effect... – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions § File:The Silence (11030194386).jpg - Fair use?. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 21:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I created Draft:Christopher Robin Baker, Draft:Shalka Doctor, and Draft:Alexander Devrient. I'd be very grateful if someone could help me get them accepted. Spectritus (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I would also be grateful if someone could help make Lewis Alexander good enough so the notice can be removed. Spectritus (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Lewis Alexander's article has been deleted. Spectritus (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello? Spectritus (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Also Draft:Steph de Whalley. Spectritus (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There are discussions open regarding the articles Voord and Mechonoid and whether these articles should be merged or not. Feel free to leave comments on the matter at Talk:The Keys of Marinus#Voord merge discussion and Talk:The Chase (Doctor Who)#Mechonoid merge discussion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July § Doctor Who series 15. This is a review discussion for the relevant article's requested move that was closed last month. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I recently nominated Time Lord for GAN, only to have it fail. I decided to clarify some points with the reviewer, @Kusma, and we came to a disagreement in terms of what content should be included in the "Analysis" section. Kusma feels as though elements of The Doctor and The Master's reception, particularly in regards to their regenerations, should be included due to regeneration being a concept associated with the Time Lords; however, I feel that this should not be included, as this information is solely about how it affected these two individual characters, not the Time Lord race as a whole, which is what the article is predominantly about. Thus, we are at a bit of a standstill in regards to whether this content should be included in the article or not.

If you'd like to read our previous discussion, more can be found at Talk:Time Lord#Queries related to /GA2. Kusma suggested getting some input from the Project to help settle this easier, and I'll go forward with whatever is determined. Feel free to leave your thoughts below. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that Regeneration (Doctor Who), which used to be a massive fancrufty undersourced monster, redirects to Time Lord. So at least some people think this is the place to discuss the concept. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regeneration (Doctor Who) might be a helpful read for why I've structured it the way it is. The AfD determined coverage of the concept standalone did not exist, and decided that what helpful information there was (Which in this article's case was all plot summary) should be covered in Time Lord. This was about the only strong piece of coverage that was identified, and the Time Lords are barely mentioned in the article. I wouldn't consider this SIGCOV of the Time Lords in any way shape or form, even if regeneration is tied to them in-universe. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Doctor Who series 14#Requested move 5 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Invasion of the Bane 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It is worth noting that {{Rose Tyler stories}} and {{Multi-Doctor stories}} were both nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Template:Rose Tyler stories and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 4#Template:Multi-Doctor stories, both were closed as not deleted. Feel free to cite these discussions in similar future deletion discussions. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Multi-Doctors was far from a clean consensus; there was a lot of counter argument in the relist not properly discussed that still has room to be talked about. Honestly, we do need to discuss the character infobox issue; no other franchise has these kinds of character specific infoboxes, and while things like the Doctor infoboxes and stuff like the Daleks and Cybermen make sense, a lot of this does just feel like something categories should be handling instead of navboxes. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Do you mean infoboxes, or do you mean navboxes? Template:Rose Tyler stories and Template:Multi-Doctor stories are both navboxes. Infoboxes are like the box on the right-hand side of the top part of the article Rose Tyler, the one with the photo of Billie Piper in-character. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 sorry, I did in fact mean navboxes (As in the navigational tools at the bottom of the page), I misspoke. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Astrid Peth 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I created Draft:Christopher Baker (director), Draft:Alexander Devrient, and Draft:Steph de Whalley. I would be grateful if someone could help me make them eligible for the mainspace. Thanks in advance. Spectritus (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? Please. Spectritus (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed was the lack of inline citations and sources asserting notability, which was noted by the editors who declined them. As noted, some of the sources are a bit questionable, but you should approach this like a research paper. Attempt to source every sentence or paragraph individually, and see where you get. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — TAnthony^Talk 18:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supplementary Doctor Who episodes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Bringing this up again because there doesn't seem to be any clarity around it: I propose that the infobox images at Third Doctor, Tenth Doctor, Twelfth Doctor and Fifteenth Doctor are changed to cropped promotional images (or screenshots) that can be used under fair use in the same way as at Thirteenth Doctor etc. While there could be a legitimate quality argument, especially with the Tenth Doctor image, more importantly is that these images to do not show the character of the Doctor. They are the actors in costume, in most cases on location during filming, not while they are portraying the character.

This was raised by many at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 7#File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg, but ignored by the closer for reasons not clearly stated. This decision then set a precedent for further deletion of infobox images. I would argue that WP:NFCC#1 would be met for replacement images, as the current versions do not serve the same encyclopedic purpose due to not depicting the character of the Doctor. U-Mos (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

NB I see Third Doctor is a more complex case, as it is an in-character promotional shot – just from long after his television tenure, so arguably less representative than a fair use image would be. U-Mos (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m not a part of this WikiProject, but I would advise you to check MOS:IMAGEREL: "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, regardless of whether they are authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated." In my view, there is no visible difference between an image of the actor dressed up as the character making a face that’s not out of character and an image of the character - such only exists in the mind, a spook, as Max Stirner would call it. 🔮🛷 starmanatee 🛷🔮 (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your response – I do think it's subjective (and case by case), and the previous discussion indicates a significant number of editors feeling that it matters. Within these examples, for instance we have Peter Capaldi (Twelfth Doctor) directly making a face at the passerby taking the photo, and David Tennant (Tenth Doctor) grinning towards members of the crew. Both of these feel to me like clear and specific reactions made outside of performance, so go beyond the threshold of what can represent their portrayal of the character. U-Mos (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the difference between "depicting an actor in costume as the Doctor" and "depicting the Doctor" is negligible. I agree with starmanatee's comment re: a cupcake. I think WP:FREER tells us that if a free photo of an actor "in character" as the Doctor is available, that is preferable to a non-free promotional shot that also depicts the actor "in character" as the Doctor. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

As frustrating as it is to not a complete set of images of the Doctor across those articles, Wikipedia still does have policies that this WikiProject needs to apply to. If there is free media that serves the same purpose, and the difference is negligible and serves the same purpose (an expression on an actor's face does not extend past that threshold), then I agree with the two responses above, in that the current images serve that purpose. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

What I'm saying is there has to be a threshold somewhere, whether it's image quality (cough Tenth Doctor image), performance, or other, which was apparently okay for the many years non-free images were in these spaces. This was raised in the discussion, then supervoted out of debate and now furthered here by little more than "nope, incorrect". No one's yet explained why the consensus that was emerging at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 February 7#File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg is irrelevant. Surely consensus is needed to determine if an image is suitably equivalent to a non-free image? U-Mos (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't okay, nobody just got around to replacing them until they were actually found and then conformed to policy. Just because an article incorrectly used content for years, doesn't mean it was "okay". The discussion closed with a very clear reason: None of the "keep" arguments cited a policy-based rationale as to why the the freely licensed media does not satisfy the "no free equivalent is available [...] that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" aspect of WP:NFCC#1. Keeping non-free media because it "looks better" does not override site policy. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair point about the previous content, and my aside on that clearly distracted your response so I've struck it from the above. I've connected the arguments that were made at the Twelfth Doctor image discussion to policy, and it wasn't hard to do – I don't think it was reasonable to close at that point, with that rationale, just because the keep arguments didn't explicitly link to policy. At no point have I said we should use a non-free image because it "looks better"; please engage with the discussion that's actually happening rather than strawmen if you reply further. U-Mos (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally (and as someone, mind, who would also love to have a full set of matching character-specific images across all articles), I believe it was closed at the right time. Discussions are not based on the number of !votes, whether there was more or not. They're closed based on the weight of the discussions. Site policy on non-free media outweights the idea of an arbitrary threshold between actor and character - if you believe in that, perhaps that's the best place to start, in actually presenting a threshold (whether it's image quality, performance, or other) and having it implemented into policy. I apologize if you disagree with my point of view here, but I'm not strawmanning. There have been three (and a half?) replies discussion that the replacements are relatively acceptable, and the reasoning as to why. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing more to say on the performance/in-character aspect, unless a consensus around it emerges here (which I think would hold weight). But where do you stand on Rhain's suggestion to replace only the Tenth Doctor image, on the basis that it is not an equivalent image due to its poor quality? U-Mos (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I can support replacing an image of poor quality, such as the one at the Tenth Doctor. Is there a recommendation for such a replacement? Preferably it would be free content, but it would satisfy FREER to use non-free content due to not being "equivalent". -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any other free image, and presume if there were another one it would have been selected over the current. Would a crop of the image at cause any issues? U-Mos (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There are a few other free images, but they're all similarly poor quality. I've replaced the image with this one, though of course others should feel free to replace with their own alternatives. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I guess it could be worse... I'm happy with that replacement, thanks for actioning! U-Mos (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There's definitely an argument to be made that the Tenth Doctor photograph does not satisfy WP:FREER, which states that a free equivalent should have an acceptable quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose; the photograph is terrible quality for the infobox, and I would support replacing it with a non-free equivalent (or, at least, a photograph of Tennant out of costume). I think the other images look good, though, especially the Fifteenth Doctor. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:21, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Rhain, I definitely think Tenth is the most egregious here, and if that's the only one that could be replaced that would still be very worthwhile. U-Mos (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@U-Mos: While it still wouldn't provide a uniform group of similar promotional images, you could perhaps try to pull an in-character fifteenth doctor image from here or here if you really wanted. There's also this one for twelve. (Noting that I haven't reviewed those for this purpose, so it may not be possible if they're wide shots, blurry, or too dark, just an idea that came to me.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Scrolling through articles on the serials and I found on The Evil of the Daleks (added by User:UniProbe62: revision) that the reconstruction on Youtube had been linked in the ELs. I want to bring up 2 points for context. Point 1, the episodes are most certainly not WP:COPYVIOEL, as it seems the channel uploading these has close ties to the main DW channel (see featured channels on DW channel), meaning it is most likely either completely official or at least endorsed. Point 2, we might not want to include these per WP:NOSOCIAL which discourages linking social networking sites. Wanted to bring this up for consensus. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 02:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@UniProbe62, just in case you have anything to add yourself. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 02:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason not to add them there given they're up to watch on a free to access medium that's officially associated with the BBC and the Doctor Who brand. I do not think it's a SOCIAL case either since it is merely just the venue being used to host the subject of the article in question and it's used in an official manner. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't fully understand NOSOCIAL, thanks for clarifying. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 05:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

What do we think of Bernice Summerfield being WP:BLARed without discussion? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Normally I'm unopposed to these kinds of BLARs but in this case I've dug into her in the past and she's definitely notable, which admittedly cannot be said about a lot of spin-off companions. I've got some sources gathered at User:Pokelego999/sandbox/WikiProject Doctor Who Fictional Elements Priority Order if anyone wants to take a peek (CTRL + F for "Bernice Summerfield"). Pinging @LastJabberwocky who did the initial BLAR. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

My bad! My search didn't find anything substantial, but you have more than enough to expand development and analysis. I reverted redirect and added your sources in 'further reading'. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Members of the project may be interested in the new article Gender in Doctor Who, written as part of a student project. I have added it to Template:Doctor Who, please correct if I have put it in the wrong section. TSventon (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)