Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Doctor Who. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 |
No new episodes
BBC on its website says new episodes are being made but none will be aired in 2016 due to coverage of the Olympics and other special events. The annual Christmas Special episode is still scheduled for 25 December. By the way, in an early episode, granddaughter Susan says she made up the phrase Time and Relative Dimension in Space to match the letters TARDIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.144.22 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is already all known and listed. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
"Heaven Sent" / "Hell Bent"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this video[1] Rachel Talalay calls "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" a two-parter, and she is the director so she would know. The production team clearly think of the episodes as a two-parter, Rachel Talalay would not have called the episodes a two-parter if they were not officially designated as such. As well as this, the video is newer than issue 495 of DWM, it was posted on YouTube on 21 January 2016 (it was originally posted on the official website on 12 January 2016[2]), DWM issue 495 was released 7 January 2016, meaning that this video is the most up to date source we have, it is the most recent statement on the official designation of the episodes, and one of the justifications of using DWM as a source in the previous discussion was that it was the most up to date source, which it isn't. We have to go by the most up to date source, there is no justification for going by an older source which is contradicted by the most recent source. Fan4Life (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed that they form a two parter, but which part of the article are you wanting modified? --Liam McM (Talk|Contribs) 11:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well it's not specifically this article, I originally started a discussion on the Series 9 page but after 2 weeks it was still only between 2 users including myself, and I was advised by User:AlexTheWhovian to bring it here as more users are more likely to have this page on their watchlist. We can take this discussion back the the Series 9 page if you so wish. Fan4Life (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Excess summaries
Certain summaries listed on the season/series pages are too long per WP:TVPLOT, which gives a limit of 200 words for summaries used in {{Episode list}}, and WP:FILMPLOT, which gives a limit of 750 words for films. They have been tagged, and are listed below. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Episodes
|
|---|
|
Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016
 | This edit request to Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Pearl Mackie in the "Various Companions as of" section as she was confirmed as the new companion. Thanks. 94.7.47.248 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- She hasn't appeared in any episodes yet. DonQuixote (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Article listed Dr. Who Chronology
Hey all Who fans. Quite some time ago there was a really awesome article that had columns listing every serial of Doctor Who, the Doctor who appeared in it, the year of production, and the year the story was set in. The columns could be ordered chronologically so a "non-time traveler" could see which doctors were crossing paths in which years. For instance, when one of the more recent doctors witnesses the JFK shooting, this is just a few days before the First Doctor sends Susan to school in the Earthly Child. Very cool article but can't locate it using the search engines. does anyone remember this? Is it still on Wikipedia? -O.R.Comms 20:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- It was original research so it was removed as per tertiary works, like an encyclopaedia. DonQuixote (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Is it still in the article history? -O.R.Comms 21:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is no article (deleted), so there's no article history. DonQuixote (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- OberRanks you might check the Tardis Wikia. I don't know if they have a version os what used to be here or not. MarnetteD|Talk 05:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- @OberRanks: The page originally resided at List of Doctor Who serials by setting; you can find the discussion for the deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who serials by setting, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 29#Proposed move of List of Doctor Who serials by setting. The page itself is archived on the Wayback Machine site here. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is no article (deleted), so there's no article history. DonQuixote (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Is it still in the article history? -O.R.Comms 21:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Logos Nominated for Deletion
Just a heads up. I noticed this has popped up [3]. Would some of these images might do with a better fair use rationale? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- They're all public domain in the US, so if Commons deletes them, they can be uploaded locally with {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}. No need for a fair use rationale. —Cryptic 22:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Two of them might be a bit outside TOO (the ones with gradient effects in the letters.) but there are equivalent "flat" versions of both in the set so this is not a major issue. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Map of Countries where Doctor Who is available to watch
I would like to pinpoint the inaccuracy of the map portraying the countries where doctor who episodes either current or classic are available. As of 2016 Netflix has become available in Pakistan and Doctor Who in its current version is available on Pakistani Netflix — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.169.39 (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @119.153.169.39: Do you have any sources to prove that Doctor Who is availible on Netflix in Pakistan? If so, could you post the URL of the source here, please. TedEdwards (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Reservations about the intro
I've never been happy with the introduction to the Doctor Who article. It heavily favors the 2005 revival of the series, specifically naming new series creator Russell T. Davies (twice) and Christopher Eccleston, but not bothering to credit the show's original production team (creator Sydney Newman, producer Verity Lambert, first Doctor William Hartnell - who is at least as important as Eccleston to the show's history). I would either name *no* actors in the intro, or at least try to balance the references; here we have three modern actors referenced and none of the older ones, not even the guy who originated the role. Also, saying the BBC has produced Doctor Who "since 1963" is misleading, since it ignores the long interim period between the two versions of the show. I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that we're really talking about two different shows here, awkwardly crammed together into one article; and like a lot of Wikipedia, the article favors recent stuff over old stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorbinDallas (talk • contribs)
- Yeah, I think you make a lot of good points here. I've edited the article to reflect them (as well as tidying up some other problems I noticed) – do you think it's acceptable now? —Flax5 18:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Articles for episodes and specials
Articles for episodes and specials should no longer be created until one of the following options are met. 1) After the episode has aired, per the consensus and typical method used by WP:TV and MOS:TV across most television-series articles (of which Doctor Who is not unique). 2) If the episode has not aired, the content needs to meet the general notability guide, and have enough content to create a separate article; that is, the episode article should not simply be duplicate information from the series article that it belongs to. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
How many doctors have headlined?
The first sentence of the third paragraph of the intro isn't correct. It states that Twelve actors have headlined the series when only eleven have, but thirteen actors have portrayed the doctor. PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Twelve actors have headlined the series plural, as supported by reliable sources. The 2005 revival made it a point to refer to both the 1996 back door pilot as well as the classic series. More than thirteen actors have played the Doctor (Richard Hurndall included). DonQuixote (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Chameleon Circuit
I believe it should be noted in the first paragraph of the premise that the chameleon circuit may be broken but that it is fixable and the Doctor chooses not to fix it because he likes the way the T.A.R.D.I.S. looks in this form.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- The lede is for a short, concise summary of the article proper. This detail can be mentioned in the article body within the proper context. DonQuixote (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Time Lord Classification
According to the show and books a Time Lord is specifically someone who entered and graduated the Time Lord Academy. Gallifreyans are transcripted at age eight and taken to see the un-tempered schism, the event that according to legend started the Master on the path to insanity, to see if they are suited to be trained to be a Time Lord. During their time in the academy they are given a second heart which is what allows them to hold regeneration energy. A normal Gallifreyan only has one heart and cannot regenerate, this is explored in the 70's in novelization when a pirate steals the Doctors second heart so that he can regenerate.
Given these details it should be noted in the article that the Doctor is a self proclaimed Time Lord even though by his own admission on several occasions he never fulfilled all the requirements to be a Time Lord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloTheMagnanimous (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Real world sources (newspapers, magazines, etc.) use the terms Time Lords and Gallifreyans interchangeably. In-universe detail such as the above can be mentioned in the article proper in the appropriate context. DonQuixote (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The Doctors Fascination with Earth
I think it would benefit to add in the premise that the Doctors fascination with Earth possibly stems from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I realize that the movie wasn't originally accepted as canon, but with the inclusion of Mcgann in the 50th anniversary special and the Big Finish audio stories featuring Mcgann, it would seem the events of the movie should be accepted into canon.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. I recommend WP:OUTUNIVERSE. We do not talk about "canon": we talk about what reliable sources say about a TV show. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to say anything about canon, I was simply bringing up canon to reinforce my point about adding the comment about the Doctors fascination possibly stemming from the Doctor being half human as revealed in the 1996 movie. I think it holds more credibility to point to events from actually released material in the Who universe rather than sources who talk about the show.PabloTheMagnanimous (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- You need to cite a secondary source that makes that analysis. An encyclopaedia isn't supposed to do that. DonQuixote (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Series 11
A draft has been start for Series 11 at Draft:Doctor Who (series 11); contributions are welcome, but the article should not be moved to the mainspace until the series has began filming. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Five years confirmed
The article states that, "In April 2015, Steven Moffat confirmed that Doctor Who would run for at least another five years, extending the show until 2020." I dispute the use of the word "confirmed" and suggest "predicted" instead. User:AlexTheWhovian disagrees. We've been discussing this at Draft talk:Doctor Who (series 11), but AlexTW pointed out the use of the phrase here.
As far as I can see, the citation given merely quotes an interview with Moffat. He's making a personal prediction of what he thinks will happen. It's not a decision that is within his power, nor is it a decision the BBC would take (when have the BBC ever confirmed a series will still be going five years hence?). AlexTW contends this constitutes an official statement by the BBC because the citation is a BBC News article, but that appears to me to misunderstand the editorial independence of BBC News when it is covering entertainment news pertaining to the BBC. The article is carefully phrased to be clear that this is something Moffat said: it doesn't state this to be a fact about reality. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Radio Times gives some more context with Steven referencing discussions with BBC Worldwide. However both Radio Times and BBC appear to be sourcing from DWM - so someone might like to track down the issue and get the full reference and context. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the RT article. Those are positive comments and I'm happy to have them in the article, but I still don't think there's anything there that confirms the show will run another 5 years. This is a personal prediction by someone
leaving the show. An informed prediction, sure, but not a confirmation. Bondegezou (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
New Reference Site
Given the imminent release of series 10 on April 15, 2017, why not add The Doctor Who Companion as a reference site.
A good resource for readers/viewers, who want to check what last year was all about before the start of series 10 http://thedoctorwhocompanion.com/2017/03/23/march-2016-17-one-year-in-doctor-who/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by John verbic (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- This is an unofficial fan website that does not conform to WP:V. -- AlexTW 06:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Eleventh Doctor is Tenth Regeneration, Not Twelfth
The article erroneously refers to the Eleventh Doctor as the Doctor's twelfth regeneration. He was the tenth.
First Doctor = Original Second Doctor = First Regeneration Third Doctor = Second Regeneration Fourth Doctor = Third Regeneration Fifth Doctor = Fourth Regeneration: This is mentioned in The Five Doctors special. Richard Hurndall as the First Doctor asks Peter Davison as the Fifth: "Regeneration?" To which he replies, "Fourth." The First Doctor then says, "So there are FIVE of me now!" Sixth Doctor = Fifth Regeneration Seventh Doctor = Sixth Regeneration Eighth Doctor = Seventh Regeneration Ninth Doctor = Eighth Regeneration Tenth Doctor = Ninth Regeneration Eleventh Doctor = Tenth Regeneration Twelfth Doctor = Eleventh Regeneration Thirteenth Doctor = Twelfth Regeneration
Thus, if The Doctor were not given a new set of regenerations, the Thirteenth Doctor would be unable to regenerate and would die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:42D0:E182:1B8F:B199:C723 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- See The Time of the Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- All explained in the linked episode above. Also, here is a chart I like to keep handy to explain this sort of issue. Enjoy. -- AlexTW 21:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You left out the War Doctor. So you are wrong. Oakymut2016 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Pearl Mackie: now or when?
Is Pearl Mackie the companion in Dr Who right now? This is the question behind a recent edit dispute. Should she be listed in the infobox as the companion (with Matt Lucas) now or not until her first episode airs?
Several editors are defending the current position that she's not the companion until her first episode starts broadcasting. Others, including myself, disagree. I think that position falls foul of WP:INUNIVERSE. Mackie is clearly already in the role because that first episode has been made, she's all over promotional materials, she's presented that way and, thus, reliable sources have responded and describe her in that role. Do a Google news search and there are hundreds of articles talking about Mackie as the companion in the present tense. Waiting for her face to actually appear on screen is privileging the fiction over the reality of making and promoting a television show, and Wikipedia favours the latter over the former.
The principle of least surprise also argues that we should be listing her now. That's what readers will expect. They'll be coming to the article to learn about the new season and the new companion. The infobox should reflect that.
Pearl Mackie is the companion in Dr Who right now, because Dr Who is a production, not a fictional universe. Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and reliable sources describe her as the companion now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say that she's the companion in future, as yet unaired (ie unpublished), episodes. Things in manuscripts aren't true in terms of writing about fictional characters until they're published as they're not verifiable by the general public. DonQuixote (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- I always think it is good to refer to policy in these cases - however after quickly reading WP:FUTURE - I'm actually more confused about this. Maybe there is something more specific that someone knows about? Cheers, Dresken (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Per the documentation of {{Infobox television}}, and the rules and consensus's set by WP:TV: put simply, no episodes has been publicly released where she has been credited as a companion, and hence she does not get included as a companion until such an episode exists; this also applies especially to the updating of the number of series - it does not get updated until the series is publicly available via its airing. Honestly, it's a week and a half away, and for some reason, editors always seem to think that Doctor Who is outside of the Television WikiProject and its consensus's. -- AlexTW 22:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say she is the companion right now: they use the present tense, not the future tense. WP:TV is applying a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of dubious nature. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide an example of a publicly available episode where she has been credited as the companion. Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable sources say she is the companion right now: they use the present tense, not the future tense. WP:TV is applying a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of dubious nature. Bondegezou (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Per the documentation of {{Infobox television}}, and the rules and consensus's set by WP:TV: put simply, no episodes has been publicly released where she has been credited as a companion, and hence she does not get included as a companion until such an episode exists; this also applies especially to the updating of the number of series - it does not get updated until the series is publicly available via its airing. Honestly, it's a week and a half away, and for some reason, editors always seem to think that Doctor Who is outside of the Television WikiProject and its consensus's. -- AlexTW 22:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
- Has anyone EVER been "credited" as a companion? As far as i know, the credits have only ever has characters names - none have ever said which ones are companions and which ones are not. 12:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.233 (talk)
- I think we can read within context and realise that Alex meant credited as the respective character.
- @Bondegezou: It's not dubious when it's based on acadaemic consensus of not treating unpublished work as if it were published. And I highly doubt that only a handful of editors are involved in WP:TV, so WP:LOCALCONSENSUS goes right out the window, I'm sorry to say. DonQuixote (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter how many editors: WP:TV cannot overrule basic Wikipedia principles.
- It would fail RS to cite an unpublished work, but no-one's suggesting that. We're suggesting citing the dozens of published RS reports that describe Mackie now as the companion. You wish to ignore those secondary sources and rely purely on a primary source (an episode being broadcast): that violates WP:PRIMARY. This obsession with the primary material is a common flaw in TV and film coverage on Wikipedia, but WP:PRIMARY is absolutely clear that we look to secondary sources over primary sources. Any reasoning that privileges the episode itself over secondary sources is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned before, reliable sources are saying that she's the companion for series 10--a body of work that hasn't been published yet. Please stop quoting out of context.
- And infoboxes are for summarising published works related to the subject. DonQuixote (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Is there any point to this discussion? There's no rush to change anything, so can't we wait for just 8 days, when the "The Pilot" will be broadcast. It's not long! TedEdwards 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- To the IP... What do you think the opening credits are? I'll post a link at WT:TV for the project members to come here and expand on this topic. -- AlexTW 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on a second - we need to wait for someone to be credited in a role before we say that they're playing that role? when did that rule get written, cause it's utterly stupid!! Does that mean that when the new doctor is announced and the rest of the world is talking about it and publishing reliable sources left right and centre, wiki won't be able to put down that he he's playing the doctor until the first episode of series 11 has actually aired?!?! The concept of waiting till someone has played a role before being able to put it on wikipedia is ridiculous. 94.1.61.64 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- That is perfectly correct, per WP:CRYSTAL. As DonQuixote said, infoboxes list what has happened, not what will happen - the prose, of the actual body and content of the article, that's where such information is added until then. -- AlexTW 16:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @94.1.61.64: This is an encyclopaedia not a newspaper. Encyclopaedias are written after the fact. DonQuixote (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on a second - we need to wait for someone to be credited in a role before we say that they're playing that role? when did that rule get written, cause it's utterly stupid!! Does that mean that when the new doctor is announced and the rest of the world is talking about it and publishing reliable sources left right and centre, wiki won't be able to put down that he he's playing the doctor until the first episode of series 11 has actually aired?!?! The concept of waiting till someone has played a role before being able to put it on wikipedia is ridiculous. 94.1.61.64 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- This should wait until her first episode is aired, per DonQuixote. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but which of the 5 things in crystal does it break? It doesn't break 1, as it is "almost certain to take place", 2 is irrelevant (companions don't follow a predetermined pattern) - it doesn't break 3 as we're not extrapolating anything, 4 is irrelevant (companions are not scientific theories) and it doesn't break 5, as it's not a rumour. But hey, if wiki wants to look stupid this time next year when it is not able to put the name of the person who everyone will then know is playing the doctor beside 'doctor', then go ahead and stick to your stupid nonsensical rule. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:CC44:E0EA:7FE6:3EDE (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ps - if you're being extremely technical and overly worried about reporting the future, then why have Matt Lucas? he's not a companion NOW, as there are no episodes on for him to be companion in currently airing. He may have been a companion in the last thing that aired, but suppose he leaves the show? Suppose he isn't credited as a companion again? You're breaking wiki rules by "extrapolating" that he will continue be a companion in future unaired episodes!!! 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:CC44:E0EA:7FE6:3EDE (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- PPS - I've just realised My IP has somehow changed from earlier - for the benefit of admins, these last two comments are the same user as 94.1.61.64. this is not an attempt to pretend that multiple people disagree, just a genuine IP change. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:CC44:E0EA:7FE6:3EDE (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- "In particular" means that those are specific examples and not every possible example.
- Look, it's quite simple. Donald Trump was elected President of the United States on 8 November 2016. He didn't become President until 20 January 2017. Similarly, Pearl Mackie was announced to be the series 10 companion in April 2016. She filmed scenes in early 2017. She won't be the series 10 companion until it airs. There's no such thing as "companion elect". And Matt Lucas appeared in The Return of Doctor Mysterio. DonQuixote (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Trump was not doing the work of President until 20 January. However, Mackie has been doing the work of companion -- filming, publicity -- for many months now. So your analogy doesn't work. We have to rely, as per Wikipedia principles, on what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say she is (present tense) the companion.
- Privileging the opening credits is to put a primary source above secondary sources, in contravention of policy (WP:PRIMARY). Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously? That's called being an actor--companions aren't real people, they're fictional characters. Mackie is an actor who will portray a fictional character, a companion, in series 10--which is what reliable sources are saying. Context matters. The fictional character Bill hasn't appeared in an episode yet as it hasn't aired (unpublished work) and shouldn't go in the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- To the IP: We will probably be able to put the name of the Thirteenth Doctor's actor in the infobox this time next year, as the Thirteenth Doctor is almost certain to appear at the end of this year's Christmas special after the regeneration, so will have appeared in an aired episode. It's what they did in 2013, when Peter Capaldi took over the role. So doesn't that make your arguement about Wikipedia looking stupid redundant? And also, please see WP:NORUSH. You'll see that this discussion is pointless, as the infobox is being changed anyway in less than a week, when Pearl Mackie appears in an aired episode. TedEdwards 16:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously? That's called being an actor--companions aren't real people, they're fictional characters. Mackie is an actor who will portray a fictional character, a companion, in series 10--which is what reliable sources are saying. Context matters. The fictional character Bill hasn't appeared in an episode yet as it hasn't aired (unpublished work) and shouldn't go in the infobox. DonQuixote (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
- PPS - I've just realised My IP has somehow changed from earlier - for the benefit of admins, these last two comments are the same user as 94.1.61.64. this is not an attempt to pretend that multiple people disagree, just a genuine IP change. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:CC44:E0EA:7FE6:3EDE (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ps - if you're being extremely technical and overly worried about reporting the future, then why have Matt Lucas? he's not a companion NOW, as there are no episodes on for him to be companion in currently airing. He may have been a companion in the last thing that aired, but suppose he leaves the show? Suppose he isn't credited as a companion again? You're breaking wiki rules by "extrapolating" that he will continue be a companion in future unaired episodes!!! 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:CC44:E0EA:7FE6:3EDE (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, but which of the 5 things in crystal does it break? It doesn't break 1, as it is "almost certain to take place", 2 is irrelevant (companions don't follow a predetermined pattern) - it doesn't break 3 as we're not extrapolating anything, 4 is irrelevant (companions are not scientific theories) and it doesn't break 5, as it's not a rumour. But hey, if wiki wants to look stupid this time next year when it is not able to put the name of the person who everyone will then know is playing the doctor beside 'doctor', then go ahead and stick to your stupid nonsensical rule. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:CC44:E0EA:7FE6:3EDE (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Can I just point out that if you're taking the opening credits as an indication for who is a companion, then you'll have to re-do the companion list - Bruno Langley and Noel Clarke were never in the opening credits (and John Barrowman didn't get in them with the Ninth Doctor either), but John Simm was. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:19C3:8D6:6DA0:427D (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- We're not. We're taking opening credits, and end credits, as an indication for whether the infoboxes should be updated (ie, has the episode aired yet?). We use reliable sources for whether a character is a companion. DonQuixote (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- ultimately, what we've got here are people misusing WP:crystal. The argument being made amounts to "it's in the future, we can't put it in yet". but this is not what crystal says. crystal is there to stop "unverifiable speculation" and editors inserting "their own opinions or analyses". It is not there to stop things that are "verifiable", "properly referenced", or "notable and almost certain to take place" - indeed those are given as specific examples of things which are OK to put in. Yes, information can change (there may be some event on Saturday that prevents the BBC from airing the episode) - but is wikipedia really the place to speculate on reasons why something might not happen? Personally, I think that sort of thing goes AGAINST crystal, not in accordance with it. you lot need to stop misusing crystal and look at what it actually says. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:1092:75B8:4F1:919 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Duly noted. If you wish to change Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, I would recommend doing it at the talk page of those articles; here won't help. Cheers. -- AlexTW 00:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- ultimately, what we've got here are people misusing WP:crystal. The argument being made amounts to "it's in the future, we can't put it in yet". but this is not what crystal says. crystal is there to stop "unverifiable speculation" and editors inserting "their own opinions or analyses". It is not there to stop things that are "verifiable", "properly referenced", or "notable and almost certain to take place" - indeed those are given as specific examples of things which are OK to put in. Yes, information can change (there may be some event on Saturday that prevents the BBC from airing the episode) - but is wikipedia really the place to speculate on reasons why something might not happen? Personally, I think that sort of thing goes AGAINST crystal, not in accordance with it. you lot need to stop misusing crystal and look at what it actually says. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:1092:75B8:4F1:919 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- We're not. We're taking opening credits, and end credits, as an indication for whether the infoboxes should be updated (ie, has the episode aired yet?). We use reliable sources for whether a character is a companion. DonQuixote (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
DonQuixote said, "Seriously? That's called being an actor--companions aren't real people, they're fictional characters. Mackie is an actor who will portray a fictional character, a companion, in series 10--which is what reliable sources are saying. Context matters. The fictional character Bill hasn't appeared in an episode yet as it hasn't aired (unpublished work) and shouldn't go in the infobox." That's an obvious violation of WP:INUNIVERSE. Our focus on Wikipedia is writing about actors, not about fictional characters. From an WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, Mackie has been playing the new companion for a while.
DonQuixote then said, "We're taking opening credits, and end credits, as an indication for whether the infoboxes should be updated". That's a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY: you are privileging a primary source over secondary sources. Our focus on Wikipedia is on secondary sources over primary sources.
Could you clarify how you feel your stance is not in violation of WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:PRIMARY? Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it the infobox is summary of released episodes. That definition does not violate in universe or primary - as the episode has not been released both out of universe and by secondary source either. In your view, what should the episode count say right now? Should some fields be what actually has been released and some what has been announced? That would confuse me. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- In the real world, the fictional character hasn't appeared in an episode yet and is regarded as such in the infobox. How does that violate WP:INUNIVERSE? In the real world, Mackie is an actress--she's not a companion because that's not a job title but a rôle she's playing as an actress. From an WP:OUTOFUNIVERSE perspective, she hasn't portrayed the character on television yet. It's WP:TV's policy not to update infoboxes until episodes have aired (ie, her performance is publicly available). If you think that violates WP:PRIMARY, then go take it up with WP:TV as this isn't the place to change policy.
- Also, contrary to what you might think, we can write about both actors and fictional characters. We can say that Mackie is an actress who has been cast as Bill and at the same time we can say that Bill is a fictional character that hasn't appeared in an episode yet. Both are factually true and both are from a real world perspective. DonQuixote (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou:After a consensus made by WP:TV, Pearl Mackie should not appear in the infobox until tomorrow. If you want to change the consensus, go to WP:TV's talk page, not here. TedEdwards 13:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the episode count. We're discussing the part of the infobox that says "Starring". This is not connected to the episode count. That line of argument seems irrelevant.
- The "Starring" entry discusses actors: not companions. It says "Matt Lucas", not "Nardole". So talking about the fictional character, that line of argument seems irrelevant.
- We have to interpret that word, "Starring", from an WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective. From an out-of-universe perspective, my TV screen, websites and newspapers is full of references to Pearl Mackie as Bill Potts starring in Dr Who right now.
- The idea that we have to wait until "her performance is publicly available" is just WP:LOCALCONSENSUS dreamed up by WP:TV. Citations don't have to be publicly available to meet WP:RS: why do TV episodes? WP:TV has this obsession with the primary source that clearly violates WP:PRIMARY. We know Saturday's episode exists because WP:RS tell us that it exists. We don't need to wait for it to be broadcast for its existence to be WP:Verified. And whether it exists or not isn't even the question: the question is whether Dr Who currently stars Pearl Mackie, and it clearly does. It is the meta-phenomenon of how the TV show is promoted, from an out-of-universe perspective, that matters. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the episode count is extremely relevant to this discussion. (Though, why this discussion is still going when the reality is that the episode airs in just over 24 hours, and will nullify this discussion, is beyond me...) You say
We know Saturday's episode exists because WP:RS tell us that it exists.
Does that mean the episode counts in the infobox should be updated? If so, why? They haven't aired. If not, then why should they remain as they are now, but Pearl Mackie should be added? -- AlexTW 14:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)- My concern is about what the Starring line says. That line shows no link to the episode count. It is a separate matter. I've read Template:Infobox television and nowhere does it point to a connection between the two. Indeed, nowhere does it say you can't update this line until the actor's first episode has been broadcast.
- Maybe the episode count should be changed, maybe it shouldn't. Feel free to start a discussion on that.
- You and others keep saying this discussion is silly because the episode airs shortly. Let me turn that round: why are you so obsessed with not making the change if the episode airs so soon? Why fetishise the precise moment when the article can be updated? That seems out of keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia. Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Simply becausec, just as we haven't updated the episode count because it hasn't happened yet, and this seems to be the consensus. You don't seem to be making the connection with the episode count and the starring members. All good. You have been given multiple valid reasons. Your issues seem to be with the cosnensus given by the WikiProject Television; perhaps they would be best directed there, though I expect you would receive the exact same responses. -- AlexTW 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I am aware that I don't have consensus support for my position. That's why I'm here on a Talk page explaining my position and challenging the counter-arguments. Hopefully, others will see the wisdom of my position and consensus will shift!
- Dresken initially made the link to the episode count, not me. I have pointed out that there is no evidence that how we fill one in must be linked to how we fill another in. The template guidance says nothing like that. You repeating that there is a link doesn't actually demonstrate that there is a link.
- I have questioned how the current position meets WP:PRIMARY's requirement that we put secondary sources first; and how it meets WP:OUTUNIVERSE. The explanations given in answer to my questions do not seem adequate to me. People keep repeating about consensus at WP:TV, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has never been able to override policy, has it? We have to satisfy WP:PRIMARY and WP:OUTUNIVERSE, don't we?
- The argument that "it hasn't happened yet" doesn't make sense. From an out-of-universe perspective, it has happened: Mackie has become the companion starring in the show. Mackie has played the part, done the work, it's all been filmed. And the makers of the TV series have promoted her role as companion. And, crucially, reliable sources talk of her as the companion -- WP:V is met! When you say "it hasn't happened", the question is what does "it" refer to? From an out-of-universe perspective, considering Dr Who as a meta-phenomenon beyond what appears on our TV screen, "it" refers means all those things, playing the part, being promoted as the companion by the BBC, taking on that role, that mantle. You, on the other hand, are insisting "it" means "people see her on screen within the fiction", which breaks WP:INUNIVERSE. Bondegezou (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: For the last time, if you want to change the pre-existing consensus on WP:TV, go to WP:TV's talk page. You're not going to be able to change the consensus here. And I don't know why you're kicking up such a fuss, there's no rush, so can't you wait for just over 24 hours. It's not that long! TedEdwards 15:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- To quote WP:PJ, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles."
- To quote WP:NORUSH, "Don't postpone dispute resolution".
- So, I don't need to convince WP:TV, I just need to obtain a consensus on this article and I am following advice and not postponing dispute resolution. I am sorry that you feel I am "kicking up such a fuss". I'm not editing the article, I'm sticking to explaining my position with reasoning on a Talk page. I don't feel that WP:PRIMARY and WP:OUTUNIVERSE are being met: if you can explain how they are, I would be thankful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I just need to obtain a consensus on this article
Then mission accomplished! Consensus is already extremely clear, given that it's only you arguing the same point now, and consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Many valid points have been put across, I'm sorry that you don't feel that they apply. WP:DEADHORSE seems to be the best course here. -- AlexTW 16:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: For the last time, if you want to change the pre-existing consensus on WP:TV, go to WP:TV's talk page. You're not going to be able to change the consensus here. And I don't know why you're kicking up such a fuss, there's no rush, so can't you wait for just over 24 hours. It's not that long! TedEdwards 15:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Simply becausec, just as we haven't updated the episode count because it hasn't happened yet, and this seems to be the consensus. You don't seem to be making the connection with the episode count and the starring members. All good. You have been given multiple valid reasons. Your issues seem to be with the cosnensus given by the WikiProject Television; perhaps they would be best directed there, though I expect you would receive the exact same responses. -- AlexTW 15:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the episode count is extremely relevant to this discussion. (Though, why this discussion is still going when the reality is that the episode airs in just over 24 hours, and will nullify this discussion, is beyond me...) You say
- @Bondegezou:After a consensus made by WP:TV, Pearl Mackie should not appear in the infobox until tomorrow. If you want to change the consensus, go to WP:TV's talk page, not here. TedEdwards 13:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at the article for Alien: Covenant. It has an infobox. It lists a bunch of people as "Starring". Yet this film has not yet been shown anywhere in the world: "it hasn't happened yet" in User:AlexTheWhovian's terms. Why can we list who stars in Alien: Covenant before it premieres, but we can't list Pearl Mackie as starring in Dr Who the day before broadcast?
This isn't some special case either. Film articles routinely list people as "Starring" before they're seen. What Wikipedia policy explains why that's fine for a film, but not for a TV show? Bondegezou (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about infoboxes for movies. We're discussing the infobox for Tv shows. This is not connected to movies. That line of argument seems irrelevant. Dresken (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why are movies different from TV shows in this regard? But, OK, let's look at TV shows. Star Trek: Discovery is still in early stages of production and yet it has an infobox listing several people as "Starring". So, we can list people as starring before an episode has premiered if it's Star Trek, but not if it's Dr Who??? Infoboxes for visual productions routinely list people as Starring before they show... except this article. Makes no sense. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou:As AlexTheWhovian has said, there is consensus for not putting Pearl Mackie's name in, and my point of including WP:NORUSH was showing that there is no rush to make any edits until tommorrow, so the infobox can be left for less than 24 hours, until broadcast. And the list on Star Trek: Discovery is the list of actors set to star, as Star Trek: Discovery hasn't broadcast, not like Doctor Who, which has broadcast, so the infobox lists the actors who are starring. Face it, all this dicussion is now is WP:DEADHORSE. Consensus is clear. TedEdwards 21:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- AlexTheWhovian gave the rationale for not listing Mackie as: "because it hasn't happened yet, and this seems to be the consensus." Star Trek: Discovery hasn't broadcast yet, and yet Wikipedia lists numerous people as "Starring". That seems to show that the consensus generally isn't to wait for something to be broadcast. He earlier said, "no episodes has been publicly released where she has been credited", yet no episodes of Discovery have been publicly released, or indeed finished. So, if that's the main argument that's been given above and it clearly does not apply at Star Trek: Discovery (and there are other examples), then I don't think consensus is clear.
- TedEdwards, you make this distinction because Discovery has never broadcast, while Mackie is coming into Dr Who partway through (so to speak). So, how does that change anything? Why do we wait for broadcast in this case of a change, but not when a show is first broadcast? If we take an out-of-universe perspective and can talk about Michelle Yeoh starring in Discovery months before before broadcast, why can't we take the same perspective and talk about Mackie starring in Dr Who hours before broadcast? How is the reader served by delaying until the episode starts rolling? Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since you have expanded your view on what to do on multiple television series, not just this one, then yet again, your issues are best taken to the WikiProject Television, as the consensus for this article is clear. Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or Bondegezou, you could wait for about 8 1/2 hours, when the episode is broadcast. Its going to be changed anyway at that time,you might as well just wait. TedEdwards 10:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Since you have expanded your view on what to do on multiple television series, not just this one, then yet again, your issues are best taken to the WikiProject Television, as the consensus for this article is clear. Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou:As AlexTheWhovian has said, there is consensus for not putting Pearl Mackie's name in, and my point of including WP:NORUSH was showing that there is no rush to make any edits until tommorrow, so the infobox can be left for less than 24 hours, until broadcast. And the list on Star Trek: Discovery is the list of actors set to star, as Star Trek: Discovery hasn't broadcast, not like Doctor Who, which has broadcast, so the infobox lists the actors who are starring. Face it, all this dicussion is now is WP:DEADHORSE. Consensus is clear. TedEdwards 21:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Why are movies different from TV shows in this regard? But, OK, let's look at TV shows. Star Trek: Discovery is still in early stages of production and yet it has an infobox listing several people as "Starring". So, we can list people as starring before an episode has premiered if it's Star Trek, but not if it's Dr Who??? Infoboxes for visual productions routinely list people as Starring before they show... except this article. Makes no sense. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
I have been back through this discussion. If we leave aside the arguments about where and when to discuss this matter and actually look at the arguments for why Mackie should not be added until her first episode airs, it largely comes down to one line of reasoning. Illustrative quotes are given below:
- “in future, as yet unaired (ie unpublished), episodes. Things in manuscripts aren't true in terms of writing about fictional characters until they're published as they're not verifiable by the general public.” (DonQuixote, 17:06, 5 April)
- “no episodes has been publicly released where she has been credited as a companion, and hence she does not get included as a companion until such an episode exists [...] does not get updated until the series is publicly available via its airing” (AlexTheWhovian, 22:26, 5 April)
- “based on acadaemic consensus of not treating unpublished work as if it were published.” (DonQuixote, 14:40, 7 April)
- “infoboxes are for summarising published works related to the subject.” (DonQuixote, 16:27 , 7 April)
- “infoboxes list what has happened, not what will happen” (AlexTheWhovian, 16:45, 8 April)
- “Encyclopaedias are written after the fact.” (DonQuixote, 16:27 , 7 April)
- “The fictional character Bill hasn't appeared in an episode yet as it hasn't aired (unpublished work) and shouldn't go in the infobox.” (DonQuixote, 13:57, 9 April)
- “As far as I understand it the infobox is summary of released episodes.” (Dresken, 13:12, 14 April)
However, that argument fails because we can see numerous TV articles that list people as “Starring” before anything has been broadcast: e.g. Star Trek: Discovery, American Gods (TV series), Twin Peaks (2017 TV series), Cloak & Dagger (TV series), The Handmaid's Tale (TV series), My Sassy Girl (TV series), &c. (All shows covered by WP:TV, by the way.) Forgive me for being blunt, but every one of those quotations is demonstrably untrue.
The only other argument I can see is: “Per the documentation of {{Infobox television}}” (AlexTheWhovian, 17:55, 8 April). Well, I read the documentation and it doesn't say anything about when to update the “Starring” line. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you look at all the links you've provided, they haven't started broadcasting, so the starring section of the infobox can only say who's set to star. However, Doctor Who, which has been broadcast for 54 years, can in its infobox say who is starring, but the starring column can't have both those set to star and those who are starring at the same time, that would be confusing, so Doctor Who, having broadcast, shows the characters who are starring. You're also really flogging the dead horse here, consensus has gone against your favour, and it's not changing. And of all the editors I've dealt with, you must be one of the least patient editors, as you seem incapable of waiting for just over 7 hours for "The Pilot" to start broadcasting, when the infobox will have to be changed to include Pearl Mackie's name anyway. TedEdwards 11:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, TedEdwards, for actually engaging in the issue and offering some rationale for why this article should do something different from those others. My apologies, for I remain unconvinced. From an out-of-universe perspective, Mackie is clearly starring now. She doesn't magically start to star when her first episode is broadcast. She stars when she is presented as starring and reliable sources cover her that way.
- If it's only a few hours before we can add Mackie, what's the problem with doing it now? How is Wikipedia made better by waiting until her first episode broadcasts? How is any reader's understanding of the show bettered by not adding Mackie's name until this evening? What confusion have you avoided?
- This is not the most important edit dispute on all of Wikipedia. I am going on a bit, but -- honest! -- I'm not trying to wind you up. I won't get mad if I can't persuade you. I won't get mad if you ignore me. But I think sometimes it's worth pointing out where practice has deviated from policy, and this fethishisation of the exact moment her first episode is broadcast just looks so wrong to me. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: Since you have expanded your view on what to do on multiple television series, not just this one, then yet again, your issues are best taken to the WikiProject Television, as the consensus for this article is clear. Cheers. -- AlexTW 12:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have looked at other series covered by WP:TV and the practice on those articles clearly contradicts your earlier comments here. I have no problem with how the infoboxes for Star Trek: Discovery, American Gods (TV series), Twin Peaks (2017 TV series), Cloak & Dagger (TV series), The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) and My Sassy Girl (TV series) have been done. They seem perfectly sensible. I am greatly reassured that editing practice on these other articles has been in line with my reasoning: namely that the "Starring" line in an infobox does not have to wait until an episode airs. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- honestly if you can't see or refuse to acknowledge the difference between unaired episodes of an existing series and a completely unreleased series - then I don't know what else to say to you. Dresken (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I have looked at other series covered by WP:TV and the practice on those articles clearly contradicts your earlier comments here. I have no problem with how the infoboxes for Star Trek: Discovery, American Gods (TV series), Twin Peaks (2017 TV series), Cloak & Dagger (TV series), The Handmaid's Tale (TV series) and My Sassy Girl (TV series) have been done. They seem perfectly sensible. I am greatly reassured that editing practice on these other articles has been in line with my reasoning: namely that the "Starring" line in an infobox does not have to wait until an episode airs. Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bill Potts (Doctor Who)#Requested move 18 April 2017. The requested move discussion concerns whether "(Doctor Who)" is or is not required in the title of the article for the character. -- AlexTW 12:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
John Hurt's War Doctor
John Hurt's War Doctor should be added to the list because if anyone has watched the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Episode -- The Day of the Doctor -- he is listed in the Credits of the Doctor as the fourth name from the top. Here is how it is shown in the Credits of the episode...
Matt Smith, David Tennant <--- There should be a note that David Tennant's "11th" Doctor used a regeneration cycle to repair his body but redirected it the rest of the Regeneration Energy to his severed hand, Christopher Eccleston, John Hurt <--- This shows that even though he is the War Doctor he is the 9th one in the line who at the end REGAINS his name as the Doctor, Paul McGann, Sylvester McCoy, Colin Baker, Peter Davidson, Tom Baker, Jon Pertwee, Patrick Troughton, William Hartnell,
Also it should be considered that though Peter Capaldi is considered the 13th Doctor (also mentioned in "The Day of the Doctor") that he should be considered the 14th Doctor due to David Tennant's Doctors 11th Regeneration was redirected to his severed hand as everyone can see in Season 4 Episodes 12 and 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekkie38 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please review Writing About Fiction. DonQuixote (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Trekkie38: There have been multiple discussions on that. Please see the archives of this talk page. -- AlexTW 01:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- This may be as good a place as any to mention the following. In the section on 'The Doctor: Changes of appearance', the text currently includes the following aboout the War Doctor: 'He is shown in mini-episode "The Night of the Doctor" to have been retroactively inserted into the show's fictional chronology between McGann and Eccleston's Doctors.' There seems to me to be something slightly wrong with this. The War Doctor is not shown in the mini-episode to have been retroactively inserted; no one, on the sole basis of watching that episode, could conclude that the War Doctor was a retroactive creation. We know, of course, that he was, but our knowledge of that fact derives from external sources, not from the mini-episode itself. What about changing this sentence to something along the following lines: 'He is shown in the mini-episode "The Night of the Doctor" to fit into the show's fictional chronology between McGann's and Eccleston's Doctors (the War Doctor was a retroactive addition to the series' mythology).' Would this suffice, or do others have better suggestions? Chronarch (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- We don't need to go that far. We can just remove "to have been", and it'll correctly state that this episode is where the insertion of the character into the mythology took place. DonQuixote (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- This may be as good a place as any to mention the following. In the section on 'The Doctor: Changes of appearance', the text currently includes the following aboout the War Doctor: 'He is shown in mini-episode "The Night of the Doctor" to have been retroactively inserted into the show's fictional chronology between McGann and Eccleston's Doctors.' There seems to me to be something slightly wrong with this. The War Doctor is not shown in the mini-episode to have been retroactively inserted; no one, on the sole basis of watching that episode, could conclude that the War Doctor was a retroactive creation. We know, of course, that he was, but our knowledge of that fact derives from external sources, not from the mini-episode itself. What about changing this sentence to something along the following lines: 'He is shown in the mini-episode "The Night of the Doctor" to fit into the show's fictional chronology between McGann's and Eccleston's Doctors (the War Doctor was a retroactive addition to the series' mythology).' Would this suffice, or do others have better suggestions? Chronarch (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2008%2F07%2F05%2Fdo0502.xml
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/news/cult/news/drwho/2006/07/17/33953.shtml
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gallifreyone.com/picview.php?ret=news&sub=news&id=season4_final_4.jpg
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409164855/http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/11/these-scifi-people-vote/ to http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/tvtoday/2007/11/these-scifi-people-vote/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/schedulebot/index.php3?date=6%20July%202007&feed_req=
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-doctorwhoseason4scifi%2C0%2C6573489.story
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spacecast.com/shows/doctorwho.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103085551/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/doctor-who to http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/doctor-who
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228210500/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228210500/http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm to http://www.purpleville.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rtwebsite/archive.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Related shows
Just to follow up on my edit the documentation for the field states "Related TV shows, i.e. remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc." I just don't see how the various "making of" shows that have been a part of the series since its return in 2005 (how can that be 12 years ago already - timey wimey again) fit into that description. As ever that is just one editors take on things and other input is welcome. MarnetteD|Talk 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree now that I realized that Confidential and Extra weren't meant to be there, and this is further supported by the template's documentation. They're listed in the "aftershows" table now anyways. -- AlexTW 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do they not count as spin-offs? It's just making me wonder about a different article that has a similar-ish "related" series to Confidential. —anemoneprojectors— 16:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- No they are not "spin-offs" since a spin-off is part of the Narrative thread of a show. They are "making of" documentaries. As to other articles a) please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and b) they should be removed from those article. MarnetteD|Talk 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do they not count as spin-offs? It's just making me wonder about a different article that has a similar-ish "related" series to Confidential. —anemoneprojectors— 16:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Doctor Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205221954/http://drwhoguide.com/ to http://www.drwhoguide.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
BBC-TV / BBC-1
"BBC Television" and "BBC-1" were seen as two seperate entities within the BBC in 1964 (and the months at the end of 1963 prior to the changeover).
Check out the BBC Genome service to see how the channel was listed at the change over period in April 1964. It became a new channel by default when BBC-2 was introduced.
What harm does it do adding one line noting that the first five months of Doctor Who went out on BBC-TV? None. Less than none?
Besides, there's no consistancy on wiki on the channel name. The Quatermass serials of the 1950s, for example, are just listed for 'BBC'. Not 'BBC-1', which by your definition of Doctor Who it would merit (it doesn't, but that's another matter). They actually went out on the BBC 'Television Service', but 'BBC' would suffice.
From 23 November 1963 to April 21 1964, Doctor Who was broadcast on "BBC-TV". The entry should be amended to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- For replying contributors, please be aware that the above editor has stated that they work for the BBC ([4][5]), meaning a conflict of interest may be present. -- AlexTW 14:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- The simplest thing to resolve this is to cite a reliable secondary source stating the above. DonQuixote (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I did some occasional freelance research work for the BBC over a five year period up to 2011. I am not expecting any further payment or work from them. There is no conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- BBC Genome listing for the last day of 'BBC Television'. http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbctv/1964-04-17
- BBC Genome listing for the first day of 'BBC-1'. http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/bbcone/london/1964-04-20
- The BBC site differentiates between the two there. What more proof do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Combing through the listings and gleaning information to reflect the above statements constitutes synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, read BBC One where the gist of that article is that BBC TV and BBC One are the same entity. DonQuixote (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I refer you to the entry further down the page where Doctor Who is listed as debuting on BBC-TV. If it is permitted there, why not in the info box? It'll only add one line and would reflect accuracy. Unless you would prefer to have it stating incorrect information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- There's a difference between what you're trying to do and what that line of text is saying. You're trying to divide up BBC One into two separate entities and wikilinking to the incorrect article to boot. According to the BBC One article, BBC One is a single entity that changed its name a couple of times. The infobox is for a simple presentation of information. Anything more complicated, such as BBC One previously being called BBC TV, can go in the body of the article (most probably in BBC One's own article, which it already is). DonQuixote (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Then why does the BBC HD channel get two entries in the simple info box when they're both the same channel with an amended name? Where's the consistancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- You should really read the articles. People spent time researching reliable secondary sources so that we can read up on things like
As a result, on 3 November 2010, BBC One HD launched as a separate simulcast of the channel and at approximately the same time, BBC HD's broadcast hours were extended to twelve hours a day.
(from BBC HD) DonQuixote (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)- If you're so concerned about accuracy, why not just add the one line to accurately reflect the broadcast history details in this instance? In any case, are you not going to add the Chicago PBS broadcast premiere of 'The Five Doctors' and New Zealand TV for the world debut of 'Silver Nemesis' Part Two and Three to the Broadcast list box? It deserves inclusion there IF YOU WANT TO BE ACCURATE. There is no consistency and no good reason why 'BBC-TV' isn't in the box. It's one more line - what difference does it make to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- From WP:INFOBOX:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
(emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- From WP:INFOBOX:
- If you're so concerned about accuracy, why not just add the one line to accurately reflect the broadcast history details in this instance? In any case, are you not going to add the Chicago PBS broadcast premiere of 'The Five Doctors' and New Zealand TV for the world debut of 'Silver Nemesis' Part Two and Three to the Broadcast list box? It deserves inclusion there IF YOU WANT TO BE ACCURATE. There is no consistency and no good reason why 'BBC-TV' isn't in the box. It's one more line - what difference does it make to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- You should really read the articles. People spent time researching reliable secondary sources so that we can read up on things like
- Then why does the BBC HD channel get two entries in the simple info box when they're both the same channel with an amended name? Where's the consistancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- There's a difference between what you're trying to do and what that line of text is saying. You're trying to divide up BBC One into two separate entities and wikilinking to the incorrect article to boot. According to the BBC One article, BBC One is a single entity that changed its name a couple of times. The infobox is for a simple presentation of information. Anything more complicated, such as BBC One previously being called BBC TV, can go in the body of the article (most probably in BBC One's own article, which it already is). DonQuixote (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I refer you to the entry further down the page where Doctor Who is listed as debuting on BBC-TV. If it is permitted there, why not in the info box? It'll only add one line and would reflect accuracy. Unless you would prefer to have it stating incorrect information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.62.252 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
13th Doc - Jodie Whittaker
It has been officially announced, Jodie Whittaker is the new Doctor in the house. Please update the wiki to reflect this. Sources : https://twitter.com/bbcdoctorwho/status/886608420241117185 & http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40624288
- Not sure if you've actually checked the article, but this was done only minutes after the announcement. -- AlexTW 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Uh, Alex, you might want to recheck that. There is (at the time of my posting this) NO mention of Jodie Whittaker anywhere. Got the feeling somebody (whose not happy with a female Doc) is quickly re-editing her out.
- You might want to recheck that yourself. Perhaps clear your browser cache? And check the article's history - it's definitely been added, it hasn't been removed by anyone. -- AlexTW 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I can't locate the edit button on the main page. Has it been removed? How do I add this external link for Jodie Whittaker's facebook group? I've noticed other major social network sites are missing too. Are the Wikipedia admins for this page still living in 1963 when Doctor Who first started? 1.128.96.251 (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, it's semi-protected to prevent vandalism from unregistered users. And Wikipedia is not a social network - we're not a place for users to gather around and join Facebook groups and the like, hence the lack of unofficial links. -- AlexTW 08:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
A "female" or a "woman"?
There's been some edit war over "a female will be Dr Who" vs. "a woman will be Dr Who"; apparently some feel strongly about this. I don't see why it matters either way. So I thought I'd help others follow WP:BRD and discuss rather than war.
I'm wondering if part of this has to do with MOS:ENGVAR? I heard Brits tend to use female primarily as an adjective, while Yanks use it as noun or adjective. (I'm a Yank, so IDK.) If true, I think ENGVAR/COMMONALITY would say we use "a woman", since both Yanks and Brits understand that, while "a female" might sound odd to Brits.
Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Woman" seems the more natural word to me, a British person. Style guides appear to prefer it too: see this, for example. I was not aware there was a transatlantic variation on this. (There is on the term "Brit": British people don't use it!) Bondegezou (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Just as Yanks don't use "Yank". :) --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC))
- Jodie Whittaker is a woman, not a female. Use of female in this context is offensive to women, and highly de-personalized. Moreover, I disagree that Americans use the two terms interchangeably; we do nothing of the sort. We use female to label a woman's gender, but describe her as a woman. The two terms are not interchangeable, and the 13th Doctor and the actor playing her should always be described as a woman. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rightly or wrongly, Yanks do sometimes use female as a noun, usually in cases that are trying to avoid the possible age association of "woman" (over 18 or some such), such as "the suspect was a white female". But it doesn't matter how us Yanks use it, since this is a Brit article per ENGVAR. So, we agree on "woman", even if for different reasons. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Jodie Whittaker is a woman, not a female. Use of female in this context is offensive to women, and highly de-personalized. Moreover, I disagree that Americans use the two terms interchangeably; we do nothing of the sort. We use female to label a woman's gender, but describe her as a woman. The two terms are not interchangeable, and the 13th Doctor and the actor playing her should always be described as a woman. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- It should definitely be "woman" which seems natural and obvious to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
After a week, unanimous consensus is "a woman". Closing. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Name
The introduction of the article speaks of "a Time Lord called 'the Doctor'". In actual fact his name was stated to be "Doctor Who" as long ago as 1966. Writer and executive producer Steven Moffat was very clear about this:
The outgoing writer and executive producer also cleared up the issue of whether the character's name is Doctor Who or the Doctor.
"There isn't any doubt about it, I'm sorry," Moffat said. "It was established in The War Machines (episode) that his name is Doctor Who."
He provided evidence to back up his point, including signing letters "Doctor W" and the third Doctor having a "Who" licence plate.
"He doesn't often call himself Doctor Who because it's a bloody stupid name," Moffat added.
I added text to this effect in the introduction (and in the body); his actual name is important enough to be there, and it is actually false to say "a Time Lord called 'the Doctor'", if anything it is "a Time Lord usually referred to as 'the Doctor'".
The text should read:
The programme depicts the adventures of a Time Lord called "Doctor Who" and sometimes signing as "Doctor W", almost always referred to as "the Doctor",[1] an extraterrestrial being ...
To say he is called the Doctor is actually incorrect.
Does anybody have any reason not to change the text to show the name established 50 years ago, and reflect the writer's statement?
- ^ "Doctor Who Christmas special: First look at Peter Capaldi's final outing". BBC News. 27 July 2017. Retrieved 30 July 2017.
writer and executive producer [said] there isn't any doubt ... it was established in The War Machines (episode [broadcast in 1966]) that his name is Doctor Who.
Pol098 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- True as far as it goes, but you don't have the whole story. Moffat goes on to talk about the uses of "The Doctor", before making a joke about the inconsistency in the name (his real point.) You might want to watch the whole panel at SDCC to get the totality of what he said, and the context. He wasn't making a definitive point about one name or the other, he was making a joke about the changes, and inconsistencies, made in television over time. The fact remains that in contemporary use, and most commonly, he's known as The Doctor. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is a place - and maybe even enough material for a separate article - for the variations of the Dr's name over the years. However, that place is not in the lede. The minutia of the details for the various items needs explanations for the reader who is not a long or short term watcher of the show. The WP:INUNIVRSE guideline is important to this issue. MarnetteD|Talk 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to know the history of the pitching of this show
I want information on who's idea was it to create a dr who. Nothing in this article says anything. Whos idea was it for the Tardis and the design. The Embryo stage of this show needs a paragraph in itself. --2605:6000:3D11:3200:925:3D5E:F608:35E4 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- At Doctor Who#History, it links to a branched-off main article History of Doctor Who. DonQuixote (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017
| This edit request to Doctor Who has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
need to add Jodie whittaker to the list of doctors and the pic need a update The13thdoctor (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done She hasn't appeared in an episode yet. More importantly, she hasn't appeared in costume yet. DonQuixote (talk)
The Doctor's Pronouns
Since the Doctor is an alien who doesn't seem to follow along human gender forms, I feel like the pronouns should be "them/they" instead of "he/him", especially since Jodie Whittaker has been cast. There are even several references made in the show that suggests the Doctor and Time Lords in general, don't strictly conform to gender. It would also be inclusive of the multiple bodies the Doctor has and will possess.
Example
"The Doctor often finds events that pique his curiosity as he tries to prevent evil forces from harming innocent people or changing history, using only his ingenuity and minimal resources, such as his versatile sonic screwdriver."
"The Doctor often finds events that pique their curiosity as they try to prevent evil forces from harming innocent people or changing history, using only their ingenuity and minimal resources, such as their versatile sonic screwdriver."
Zoesteph (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please add to the discussion at Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Incoming pronoun situation. DonQuixote (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Ratings Graph
Anyone who knows how to create a graph can you make one for the new series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- G'day, the best way would to be to follow the bouncing ball with something like AlexTheWhovian's Template:Doctor_Who_RT_scores_S10. However I'm sure once it is time to properly create the Doctor_Who_(series_11) article (once it has actually aired) he will likely have created it himself. Else it'd be good to stick to his format for uniformity throughout the other series-level articles. — IVORK Discuss 21:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ratings graphs are not necessary. Please see the discussions at Talk:The Big Bang Theory § Ratings Graph, and subsequently, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21 § Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings and related templates. Also, Doctor Who (series 11) should be created once the series starts filming, per the consensus at WP:TV. Which, hopefully, is sooner rather than later... -- AlexTW 02:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- wait how did you mention me Abequinn14 (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also mentioned. — Wyliepedia 03:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's because I accidentally transcluded Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21 rather than linking it ([6][7][8]). My bad. -- AlexTW 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Heh. That's funny, I saw the little red '1' and thought "I really haven't done anything lately for anyone to be responding to me about..." Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- But a bar graph is more interestling to see than a table. There are already graphs on shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. - XtremeNerdz12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- They both currently use a chart like the one I linked for series level ratings, bar chat for views. Works well enough to see which are the better episodes — IVORK Discuss 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, they can be helpful, but they're not useful for longer series. Why just the new era? Why not the classic era? If there's going to be a graph, it needs to encompass the entire program - and there's over 800 episodes, so it will be too much. Also, WP:OSE is not a valid reason. And please sign your posts on talk pages. -- AlexTW 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about on the List of Doctor Who serials page have a ratings chart for each doctor. - XtremeNerdz12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Not necessary. Still too much. And please sign your posts properly with ~~~~. Thank you. -- AlexTW 23:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- How about on the List of Doctor Who serials page have a ratings chart for each doctor. - XtremeNerdz12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, they can be helpful, but they're not useful for longer series. Why just the new era? Why not the classic era? If there's going to be a graph, it needs to encompass the entire program - and there's over 800 episodes, so it will be too much. Also, WP:OSE is not a valid reason. And please sign your posts on talk pages. -- AlexTW 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- They both currently use a chart like the one I linked for series level ratings, bar chat for views. Works well enough to see which are the better episodes — IVORK Discuss 15:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- But a bar graph is more interestling to see than a table. There are already graphs on shows like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones. - XtremeNerdz12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtremeNerdz12 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Heh. That's funny, I saw the little red '1' and thought "I really haven't done anything lately for anyone to be responding to me about..." Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's because I accidentally transcluded Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21 rather than linking it ([6][7][8]). My bad. -- AlexTW 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ratings graphs are not necessary. Please see the discussions at Talk:The Big Bang Theory § Ratings Graph, and subsequently, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 21 § Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings and related templates. Also, Doctor Who (series 11) should be created once the series starts filming, per the consensus at WP:TV. Which, hopefully, is sooner rather than later... -- AlexTW 02:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)