Talk:Doctor Who

RfC: Infobox image

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.

---

What image should be used for the infobox of the Doctor Who main article?

1. The currently-displayed title card as shown between the eighth to tenth series, File:Doctor Who - Current Titlecard.png
2. The new title card to be introduced in the eleventh series, File:Doctor Who Logo 2018.jpg
3. A free-media title card, several of which are already on Commons, c:Category:Doctor Who logos; a previously-suggested title card from this category is c:File:Doctor Who.svg

Guidelines and policies that have been raised in the previous discussion at § NEW LOGO! in relation to this discussion are MOS:TVIMAGE, WP:NFC, WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1. -- Alex^TW 02:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 using one of the free title card from commons listed at c:Category:Doctor Who logos per WP:FREER; Strong Support for using the one I suggested. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support #2 In MOS:TVIMAGE, there is no indication that a non-free image can be used - so long as it conforms to what it states about the intertitle shot of the show in it's main article, and it is in use, there is nothing wrong in using it. GUtt01 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As quoted in the discussion above (this is for the benefit of uninvolved editors coming to this RfC), MOS:TVIMAGE states If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used - that is the case for #2. -- Alex^TW 08:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

True as may be, but I think that the choices made above aren't exactly the right ones. I read your response while at work on my phone, and... I had to think on this for today, and have since now, come up with something that I believe may be debatable, yet also hold some truth to it. I think the choices that were put forward by you, may have been wrong. In my opinion, they should have really been made out as these to your question:

#1. A free-media title card that is representative of the show.

#2. A non-free title card of the original logo of the show, when it was first broadcast.

#3. The standard arrangement used over the years - the changing of the logo to the one used by the show officially for a new series and its website.

Now for each, I would state that they each have their pros and cons:

* Option 1 would require a good deal of searching for one that would be suitable, and this could be open to interpretation by editors to also include any design of the logo made by fans that they have given legal right to be freely used. However, it would be reasonable, and would certainly work well with the site's policies.

* Option 2 would certainly do well in conforming to MOS:TVIMAGE, in terms of its guidelines to what could be considered a suitable image that is non-free. But of course, as I stated just then, the Manual of Styles are more guidelines - they are aimed at demonstrating a preferable way of presenting information in articles, particularly various forms of media and fictional work.

* Option 3 would be more agreeable with editors, because its simple enough to do and wouldn't be causing problems, yet with this recent discussion over the recent logo to be brought into use for the program, it raises questions on if it would be appropriate to do so and if there are other articles on TV programmes which have featured logos/title cards that have changed for new series.

In short, of these three options I have put forward, I believe Option 2 would be most appropriate. Why? - The simple answer is that it should really be focused on the original logo of the show that was used. Any subsequently new logos that were made could be marked out in the article in separate image files, denoting the period of their use, and if agreed on, could also be included in the article of the series that they first appeared in. I would be more for that, in all honesty, than continual changes in logos/title cards in this article. GUtt01 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Alright. If we must go with the logo and a free version of it, why not get a free version of the show's logo as it now stands today? Surely that is best as a whole, right? Not a title card - "the" logo on the official website for the show. I mean, I found something that could be used, by I want an opinion on this -> http://az756667.vo.msecnd.net/cache/1/b/a/e/f/f/1baeff3beba808470db3d9eba3a7ce3aa3fbbf95.png <- mainly because I can't say if it's a free or non-free version. I hope it's free, but if not, it would have to do as long as it conforms to non-free guidelines. GUtt01 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a free version (as basic geometric shapes cannot be copyrighted), but that doesn't mean it should be used, because, as another editor has pointed out, WP:RECENTISM. The free option previously suggested is representative of the show since 2010, whereas the "current" version hasn't even premiered with the series itself yet. -- Alex^TW 08:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I could understand that and there might be a possible case for recentism in terms of the article's infobox image, but putting that to one side... well, I am of the opinion that, while it stands to reason that a logo for the programme should be used, preferably a free version, rather than a titlecard, the question comes down to the fact of what it should be, and whether there would be an acceptable amount of consensus for it. For a set number of series, the logo would naturally be one that represented the show for that duration; the original logo certainly represents the show, but does it do so for the whole programme as such, and is it considered so by the people who produce the programme? Yes, it does represent the show in the basis of its history, being the first one used, but does it represent the show, its entire franchise as a whole? That is the big question here. But in my opinion, I fear this could become a very protacted debate on the matter, because it could stir up issues amongst editors over this subject, as everyone will be split between their own views and therefore it will be hard to find a proper consensus on the matter. Perhaps, therefore, the question should be really "What logo for Doctor Who is felt to be the best representation of the programme, and for what reason?" GUtt01 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1 up to October, Support #2 after October - As I said above none of the logos at Commons are appropriate as they're not used anymore so it seems silly to use an out of date logo in the infobox .... Also using an out of date logo means newbies are always going to try and replace it with a titlecard ..., Titlecards are used everywhere and are used to help our readers understand the topic, As stated above regardless of what MOS:TVIMAGE says we should invoke WP:IAR and follow common consensus by using a titlecard. –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: WP:AIR actually goes to the WikiProject for Aircraft. Could you change it please, to go to the policy you were directing us to? GUtt01 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I clearly meant WP:IAR, Ever heard of typos?..... –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, mate, but I just wanted to let you know that you made one. GUtt01 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they're not used anymore. If they are representative of the show, then it can be used. The reason for WP:IAR seems based purely on personal preference and nothing solid. (For reference, a discussion on the updates to MOS:TVIMAGE can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/PSE image.) Also using an out of date logo means newbies are always going to try and replace it with a titlecard - is this not exactly what you are doing, or requesting? This is what hidden notes are for, as we currently have one and there haven't been any changes since. Titlecards are used everywhere and are used to help our readers understand the topic Technically, a title card doesn't help understand anything, it's there to represent the show. What does the current blue logo help readers to understand? That the series is Doctor Who? Yes - but any logo can do this. -- Alex^TW 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 I just realized I never !voted on this, I just made the introduction. As I've already noted, free media must be used over non-free media if it is available per WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1 (the latter of which is a legal policy), and this is the case here. WP:IAR cannot ignore that. When I support #3, I'm open to any of the files listed in that category, particularly either the second (as it is a form of the original logo for the series) or the sixth (as suggested by TheDoctorWho). -- Alex^TW 23:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1/#2 Don't really care which. With regard to #3, I'm neutral with regard to the logos that have been used on the show in the 60s i.e. the first 5 on the commons link above, but I strongly oppose using Doctor Who.svg and User DW.png, as they have never been used on the show, so I do not believe they are representative of the show in any regard. Also on #3, if you change the logo to one of those, I feel that there may be editors who will just revert the page back to the previous logo, making the page unstable. TedEdwards 18:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

c:File:Doctor Who.svg has never been used? Take a look at that file, then take a look at the current title card... I feel that there may be editors who will just revert the page back to the previous logo, making the page unstable. That's what WP:CONSENSUS, hidden notes, and page protection are for. -- Alex^TW 23:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Oh yes, I remember that time when the Doctor Who logo was white. When was it... ah yes, 30th February last year. My point stands, the logo is blue, so my belief is that there isn't a non-free alternative if we used the 12th Doctor's logo and yes I do know the typeface is the same, but that does not make them the same logo. In regard to my other point, it's just my instinct; I have nothing against the images I was refering to (first 5), but I feel future editors might (and not just IPs) "update" it (especially WP:OWN editors). It shouldn't really affect the discussion though. TedEdwards 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

People wonder why I'm a smartass, and then I get this given to me... The colour of the logo is irrelevant. The styling of the logo is irrelevant. Free media is deliberately non-styled, but still portrays the same meaning behind it as the title card does (example, List of Game of Thrones episodes and Game of Thrones). On Wikipedia, it therefore does make them the same logo. -- Alex^TW 21:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I don't see a problem with using c:File:Doctor Who.svg for articles other than this one, but we are not discussing those articles, and I still feel this page needs the styled logo i.e. the logo needs to be identical to that of the show and not a variation. Regarding my previous message, I was in a bit of bad mood (real life things), hence the sarcasm, so sorry about that. TedEdwards 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot base content on what we feel like an article needs, we must base it on policies and guidelines. There is nothing that states that the logo must be identical to that shown in the series, but there are policies that state that free media must be used over non-free media if it exists. -- Alex^TW 00:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, why even make the AfC in the first place if the policy dictates Option 1&2 completely invalid? Again, it's not about if free content merely exists, but free content that has the same encyclopedic purpose and the same effect in the article — IVORK _Discuss 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1 up to October, Support #2 after October per above discussions. Purely stylized text serves to add nothing to the article. It doesn't identify anything relevant. Surely there is a line between being more important to be free and actually useful / relevant / an improvement to the article. Otherwise pretty much all shows could just use the title text as displayed in the show with the background stripped away, but they don't. — IVORK _Discuss 23:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

They could, yes, but only if the title card text was available as basic geometric shapes without any styling, but for most shows, this is not available. You !vote supports using the non-free media, but what about an explanation for supporting the change in October? -- Alex^TW 00:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLUDGEON - You've so far replied to every editor who hasn't gone with 3, Please take a step back and allow editors to voice their opinions. –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am. They posted their opinions, and I'm replying to them. This is a discussion, after all. Are you taking ownership of this discussion and telling me that I cannot respond to others, because you disagree with my own !vote? -- Alex^TW 00:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

But as you started the discussion you should take a step back and allow editors to voice their opinion, I agree this is a discussion but virtually each and every !vote is then replied to by you .... –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I started the RFC as a neutral question of options, not the discussion. You haven't given me my permission to respond to the below post. -- Alex^TW 00:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that not the air date for the 13th Doctor? That was an assumption I'll admit, replace October with whenever people feel it's more relevant.

The additional arguement to be made is that it specifically states in WP:FREER that when using non-free content "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?". My/Our counter argument is that purely stylized text and all the examples presented thus far do not adequately replace the image with the same effect for the article — IVORK _Discuss 00:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010: This is a response to my post - am I allowed to reply to this? -- Alex^TW 00:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: If they are legitimate questions, sure you can pose them. But if you're just re-stating what WP:FREER and WP:NFCC state, then there's it does seem to be WP:BLUDGEONING and out of place. You seem to be forgetting that the majority rules per WP:IAR regardless of current standing "policy" as that is ultimately what all "policy" is. And per you edit summary of Reply, and make sure you don't put your replies in the literal middle of other people's posts, yeah? it was me that replied below and indented that breakaway one further, per the "Re RfC for the 5th time after edit conflicts". You can respond to my above response but it might also be good to take a break for a little while dude... — IVORK _Discuss 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned WP:FREER and WP:NFCC once in a comment, so this appears to be a personal desire for you to not want me to discuss or contribute to this. And that comment wasn't to you, it was to Davey - see his contribution. Right and nicely between yours. -- Alex^TW 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fairo, I concede the point for his edit. And if that were the case then I guess it's not just me as above and below, it's about responding to every opposing comment. That's not traditionally what RfC's are for; telling people why they're wrong. Again, if the majority agrees on something policy doesn't, it's fine to keep rolling with that. Although I'd disagree with WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1 being absolute in the first place with the the same encyclopedic purpose / same effect statement per above — IVORK _Discuss 01:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We could indeed say that they're not absolute, but unfortunately, the latter clearly states "This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." -- Alex^TW 01:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #1 up to October, Support #2 after October. Frankly, this RfP was unnecessary given the discussion above was progressing nicely, but here we are. The #1 then #2 option will keep the article consistent with long-term practice (and thereby standing consensus) and will cut down on endless changes made by well-meaning editors (registered and IP). I also concur with concerns above regarding WP:BLUDGEON and Alex's need to respond to every editor opposing what he wants; this is clearly designed to have a chilling effect on any opposition and allow Alex to have his way. He needs to step out of the discussion, which can then take its natural course. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support #3 as the best of the lot which are free per User:TheDoctorWho and Alex. Alex can hardly be said to have had a chilling effect on the discussion when so many of you are re-iterating the line Support #1 and then #2 after October. "He needs to step out of this dicussion"? Excuse me, but that's essentially telling an editor to shut up and is absolutely, postively inappropriate. Is it possible Alex is a little overenthusiastic? Maybe. Is he wrong to point out that the march of opinions here fall foul of our rules and guidelines? Can local consensus override WP policy? No, it cannot. If it could, then any article on Wikipedia could indulge in OR and SYNTH just because its editors felt like it at that time and go unchallenged. That's not how it works. Look, I get why most people expect the logo to be a perfect replica of the title card of a series, as they expect the official website to do so or a fan site to do so. But Wikipedia is neither of those things. I won't reiterate the guidelines and rules which Alex et al. have already pointed us to. I will, however, point out, that switching one card for the newest title card smacks strongly of WP:RECENTISM and suggests that we are behaving like fanboys or -girls and not like editors of Wikipedia. I won't be around much to participate beyond this statement (let's just say I'm busy very busy next few weeks), so anyone feel free to pick up where I've left off. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for that. Yes, I know I'm not the easiest editor to discuss with, never have been. But telling an editor not to be a part of the RFC at all is too much; I have done that for no editor here. And recentism! Thank you! I've been thinking for days that there was something related to not basing content on recent events, that was it. Furthermore (and I know I'm going to get attacked for this by contributing further), per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Especially a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. -- Alex^TW 07:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 I know there has been a long standing consensus to use the most recent titlecard on this article but that can't override WP:NFCC#1, which is policy, and there are several free alternatives available at Wikicommons. My own preference would be for the first logo from 1963.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI, after seeing another quote of WP:NFCC, I have posted on the talk page of NFCC, requesting the view of editors who are fully aware of the policy and its consequences, as any local consensus cannot override a policy. -- Alex^TW 00:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 with the understanding that each of the series articles appear to readily demonstrate the logo used in that season as part of the identifying image for that season. In this case, we have a free version of the near-current logo, which is clearly recognizable. --Masem (t) 01:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"near-current" .... near being 10 years pretty much ..... Right, Okay. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Each series article uses home media cover art, which does not have a free equivalent and there is only one version available for each series within the UK (i.e. there is not more than one home media release or different versions available). For the series as a whole, the free version of the logo is in the same style and font as the title card since 2010, and is therefore very recognizable. -- Alex^TW 06:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 as per above comments. Bondegezou (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1 up to October, Support #2 after October. I agree that long-standing practice makes sense here since everything else will only result in constant edit wars with well-meaning editors who try to change the logo. I disagree with #3 meeting WP:NFCC#1: The encyclopedic purpose is not served by using a self-made logo that is in fact not the real logo the show used. People looking for information on the topic expect to see the actual logo as it was used, not some knock-off. Plus, neither of those free "alternatives" actually meets the WP:TVIMAGE standard Alex cited above. The first five were only used from 1963-1969 and the other was only used from 2014-2017. If one wants to use the "one most representative of the show", we probably should use the diamond logo that was used from 1973-1980. On a side note though, I'm no expert but is the new logo actually eligible for copyright? After all, it also is "a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes". If it was PD, the problem would be solved anyway. Regards SoWhy 09:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that I can reply to this post. It is eligible for copyright because it is a screenshot from material owned by the BBC, and hence is not free material. The diamond shape, per your time period, was used for 7 years. The SVG suggestion has actually been in used since 2010, so technically, they both have the same length of usage. All free version of non-free media are, as you would put, "knock-offs", as they are the basic geometric shapes of the content in question. It actually does meet MOS:TVIMAGE, as the guideline then goes on to state Additional images in an article outside of the infobox must also comply with Non-free content criteria [...] and should always strive to use free images whenever possible, per WP:FREER. Free images can be used from Wikimedia Commons. - this has, so far, not been quoted, I believe, but quotes policy itself, and is therefore a necessary and important part of the guideline. -- Alex^TW 09:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I was not asking about the image itself but the logo. When someone recreates it as they did the 2014-17 logo, would that recreation be subject to copyright? As for the other point, the current logo is only in use since 2012/14. The previous logo, from 2010, included the DW Tardis-style logo which means the current logo was used at most for five years while the diamond one was used for seven years. Additionally, the diamond logo was used extensively in the 1980s/90s for video releases and audio series and is probably the one most people (except those who grew up with the new series only) associate with the show. Regards SoWhy 10:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it is stylized and extracted from non-free media, making it non-free media itself. The re-creation, that is free, as basic geometric shapes cannot be copyrighted. Anything in the Commons category is free. The font of the SVG logo is the same as the 2010 title card, meaning that it is acceptable to use in relation to that title card. -- Alex^TW 10:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Support #1. I think the purpose of these title cards used in the infobox is more than simply display the textual logo component. I think an actual screenshot of the title card in this case actually conveys some further information about the style of the show which a free equivalent would not be able to do. And being the main article for the show I think it is extremely relevant and encyclopaedic to demonstrate this. With that in mind, I believe the current image then meets requirements for WP:NFCC and MOS:TVIMAGE. And between the two (although I haven't actually seen the new one) I think any changing to the new logo are best left to discussion after it being aired on the show, which tends to be the status quo generally for many things in articles. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I notice that my comment has been removed. I Was under the impression that everyone was allowed to give an opinion on wikipedia, and not just registered users. I was also under the impression that you weren't allowed to delete talk page comments unless they were actually abusive. If I have been abusive, please point out where, and I will apologies. But in the mean time I shall re-post my comment below.

I'm not quite sure of the difference between 'logo' and titlecard' - but I think the only common sense answer is that is should be the current one. The logo that wiki should use is one that IS used, not one that WAS used. A logo that is no longer used cannot substitute for one that IS used - and I don't care if a 'free version' or not - because a non free current logo is inherently better than any logo no longer used - because it demonstrates something that IS used. But then wikipedia isn't very good at common sense 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:88EF:903:AB82:E702 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have been caught up in someone removing their thread [1]. Deleting others comments is the wrong thing to do - so I am restoring the content and marking that discussion as closed as this RfC is sufficient. Thank you for participating. Dresken (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support #3 - precedent seems just have a title with the appropriate font as shown for Torchwood, Star Wars, and Star Trek. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you have quite selective chosen examples as your precedent. Firefly (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Cheers. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 06:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There's dozens with a screenshot, dozens with a standard font, there's not really precedent for it, but I believe that if the standard font is available, it should be used over a screenshot per policy. -- Alex^TW 06:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As far as I have read, the policy does not state that a logo should be used over a screenshot. I believe this arguement only hangs on is WP:NFCC#1 - which I reject applies as I believe the use of a titlecard/screenshot actually conveys more information that a logo does alone making it pass the criteria. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support #2 now. Doctor Who is a cross-media phenomenon. The various press and digital releases will feature the orange styling from now until October. So I believe it is fitting that the Wiki page is updated accordingly even before the new television series airs Phantomsnake (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but is it representative of the series as a whole? -- Alex^TW 09:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: As I've stated above, when a show has been running for 54.25 years, I would argue that getting an image that is currently the most recognisable for the show is equally if not more-so important than one that encapsulates 50+ years combined. And again per TheDoctorWho's statement above, MOS:TV states that If a show has multiple intertitles throughout its run, the one most representative of the show should ideally be used; meaning that the intertitle does not need to be updated each time a new version is used. The use of ideally and does not need clearly indicates it's not compulsory, and as most shows don't run for 50+ years, I'd say DW definitely could make an exception.

As for your other argument, in checking that line, I just realised the line above that states:

MOS:TV - "For a show's main article, an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself should be used. Failing that, a home media cover may be used."

Which combined with the fact that many editors have argued all non-free images presented so far do not hold the same encyclopaedic value (WP:NFCC#1) as the current image and that per above we can actually change the image from time to time, in my eyes makes this RfC pretty much open and shut. — IVORK _Discuss 22:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support #2 I have noticed that on the french Doctor Who page a version of the new logo is being used. However, my problem with all this is that there are really two questions at play here. The first question is whether the logo should be a non free-media title card or a free media image. The second is which version of the logo best represents the show. Now, I will leave the first question to people better experienced on this site. For the second question there are only three realistic options:

  1 - The Original Logo - I have seen this one suggested already. I do not believe though that it is representative. it has not been used often since its retirement in the 60's.
  2 - The "Legacy" Logo - This one is the silver variation of the TV movie logo. It was used on all merchandise for the classic Doctors and since the 50th it has been used on the reissued DVDs for the 9th and 10th Doctors 
                                as they have become legacy Doctors (All doctors before Peter Capaldi). This logo is unlikely to change in any meaningful way in the future. 
  3 - The Current Logo  - I agree with Phantomsnake, This logo will be used from now on for all things relating to the new series.

I think both 2 and 3 have there pro's and con's. I have however added free media versions , so the first question shouldn't affect the second one there. --JAC2008 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You identifying the two different issues really at play here - I feel it is important to discuss the first which I interpret to be addressing the issue of: is a textual only replica of a logo the same as "an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself" WP:TVIMAGE? For me, I believe the screenshot conveys more information about the show and is therefore superior in representing the show than the text only logo alternative. A screenshot definitely comes across as the intention of WP:TVIMAGE, and I believe claims of WP:NFCC#1 are unfounded as the two choices are not equivalent. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• None of the above. As the article at Doctor Who opens, the page is about a TV programme, not a specific length of time within the programme (as a specific logo would represent). No overarching, persistent symbolism had been officially designated by the programme or its makers, therefore there is no image to place in the infobox that's representative of the article/programme as a whole entity. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Official designation is not a requirement for what is "most representative of the show". Dresken (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Let's think outside the infobox. Per the last few comments, I may just "have a cunning plan". Let us consider the articles for the Doctor and the Master themselves. I'm sure we're all very happy that there is a picture of every actor who played the lead (Hurt never having been the lead) and each representative image of the Master. These images represent the character as a whole very adequately. The problem is, how do we do that for the series as a whole? Well, per fourthords above, we really can't--at least, not with a single image. But this is the 21st century. Who says we have to settle for a lone(ly) image? We have some animated images in a few articles already, like the switch from Four through the Watchter to Five in Regeneration (Doctor Who). Now let that sink in. So, is there any good reason we couldn't run several (free or whatever consensus/rules end up allowing for) images slowly, one to the other, say, in chronological order? (As opposed to having them playing busily around the corners)? (assumes Hartnell's voice: Hm? Hm?) Whatever we end up doing, this at least may serve to make the infobox more genuinely representative of the series. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well me personally I like to think inside the infobox because the infobox is bigger on the inside. Me personally, I wouldn't see a problem with that but I'd think before doing something like this to make sure that it doesn't violate anything / we fill out proper fair use forms. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of having all logos appear in the infobox with the same reasoning why we have all Doctors appear in the infobox of the Doctor's article. I object to animation though, it usually creates problems on other devices. Why not have all logos appear side by side instead? Regards SoWhy 09:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For a show that actually thrives on change - I think these are actually a great ideas for what is "most representative of the show". Dresken (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I just realized, and this hasn't been covered yet, but how do we even know that #2 is the title card that will be used? The reveal of the new logo was a specially-filmed event, there is no guarantee or reliable source that states that the specific screenshot as provided in option #2 will be the eleventh series' exact title card. -- Alex^TW 02:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If the point is accuracy up to the current moment (it is) and we don't know for certain that the announced promotion images will be how the logo/title card will appear in the series when it airs months from now (we don't), then doing anything other than continuing to use the most recently-aired series graphic would be a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 05:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You do raise a good point there - What was shown was just a promotion after all. The logo is certainly a confirmed thing, but the title card isn't. We can't just change it to this - we don't have any evidence to confirm that this will be it in some form or another. GUtt01 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair point Alex, but as the support for using #2 before series 11 airs isn't very high, I doubt the consensus will be to use #2 before series 11 has begun airing. After series 11 premiered, it's safe to say we'll know what the logo and the title card will be for certain, so using #2 then shouldn't be a problem from that perspective (it may be a problem with Nfcc and representation of the show however, I accept). Btw, have you got in contact with an editor who understands Nfcc really well yet? TedEdwards 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's less about whether we know what the title card *will* be, and more that at the point at which it airs, it will only then be "current". Up until that moment, the current title card, is the one that has aired (which, as of writing, is the one shown in front of the 2017 Christmas special). Also, we don't know that the "legacy" logo is staying the same necessarily. Look at the packaging previewed in promotions for Tom Baker's 1st season box set… it's using the new series logo (though it's not final design… this could change). —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 03:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Original Release?

In the original release row it says 1963-2018 but it was revived in 2006 so that is not the original release! Panda815 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The show premiered in 23 November 1963, and it still airing, hence "23 November 1963 – present" is correct. Read the template documentation - revivals aren't mentioned in the infobox, only the article. -- Alex^TW 23:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2018

YOU HAVE THE BELOW LISTED:

num_seasons = 26 (1963–1989)
+ 1 TV film (1996) Entalzah (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra

I first encountered the Doctor in his fourth incarnation, played by Tom Baker, and though I haven't followed the stories much since then, I remain interested in the Doctor and all things about him. In Doctor Who § Companions I was greatly startled to see that River Song is played by Alex Kingston. You see, while Alex may be a common shortening of Alexandra in the UK, here in the US it is generally short for the male name Alexander.

I thought of adding an explanatory footnote, but that would require the reader to click for it: a distraction for one who knows that Alex Kingston is a woman, and an additional distraction for one who does not. I thought of making "Alexandra Kingston" a redirect to "Alex Kingston", but there's already an Alexandra Kingston page, discussion of the deletion of a formerly existing article by that name. Rather than mess with that, I changed "Alex Kingston" in the text to "Alex [Alexandra] Kingston", piped to Alex Kingston, using square brackets rather than parentheses because the linked name is already parenthesized after the name of the character. I also added an HTML comment referring future editors to this section of the Talk page. --Thnidu (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. Alex is a common nickname for women too. DonQuixote (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The brackets and explanatory items are not necessary. See Elizabeth Corday her character on ER. She was credited as Alex throughout her tenure on that show and that started in 1997. US viewers are aware of who she is. MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and DonQuixote: That's fine for viewers, but the article isn't just for people familiar with the show. If it were, most of it would be unnecessary. I don't edit-war, but I still hold that it's appropriate. --Thnidu (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a common name. Alex Danvers, Alex Borstein, Alex Morgan, just off the top of my head. DonQuixote (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where the notion that Alex is only short for Alexander in the US comes from- this is just not the case. DonQuixote has given plenty of example to dispel this misconception. MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, WP:COMMONNAME. Articles such as this (in this case, Alex Kingston) are named after their most recognizable name. (And, what? I'm an Alexander that goes by Alex, who happens to know several Alexandra's that also go by Alex.) -- Alex^TW 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that Alex is not a common name for women named Alexandra in the U.S. but that's not the case. Alex Kingston works in the U.S. and Canada as well as in the U.K. and is very well known as such. Adding to DonQuixote's list is Alex Guarnaschelli, a very popular celebrity chef who appears on Iron Chef America and other programs on the Food Network. Law and Order, SVU has a former main, now recurring character, Alex Cabot, who's is a former ADA, and a woman. Both are Alexandra, but almost entirely known as Alex. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, eight examples of female Alexes, all well known in their fields. The list in Alex § People whose first name is Alex has 31 Alexes, only two of them female. (I'm counting "Alexander Johnson (disambiguation), multiple people" as just one, since all the people listed there are evidently Alexanders and male.) That's two out of 31, or 6.5%.

(@AlexTheWhovian: Your comment at 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC) is irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting changing the name of any article, only adding a clarification in the content of this one.)

I went looking for statistics on the relative frequencies of Alex as a male and a female name. I couldn't find anything at census.gov (US), but according to [href= https://www.gpeters.com/names/baby-names.php?name=Alex Baby Name Guesser],

Based on popular usage, it is 7.363 times more common for Alex to be a boy's name.

No matter how many examples you can find of female Alexes who are well known in their field, "The plural of anecdote is not data." --Thnidu (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

One out of eight (roughly) is a significant ratio. Compare that to 1:100 or 1:1000. DonQuixote (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

All of this 'numbers' sophistry is not a reason to add any 'clarification' to this article. Just because it is a more commonly a males name does not mean that it isn't used as a woman's name. BTW the discussion here is about adults not children. You have presented zero evidence that US readers are 'confused' by the name Alex. Even if there were WP:ENGVAR applies. So if Alex is a common shortening of the name in the UK (also an assertion without evidence) then there is no reason to add a clarification to a UK article. The current WP:CONSENSUS is clear that any clarification is not needed. You could always start a RFC if you feel the need but that is up to you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is getting out of hand, and I'm detecting a faint whiff of misogyny in the assumption that Alex = Alexander, and thereby instances of Alex = Alexandra (and only the female form) require some unique intervention. It's just absurd.

After reading the day's discussion, a couple things are clear. A. Thnidu has yet to provide sufficient evidence to support the central thesis that Alex is seldom used as a nickname for Alexandra in the U.S. We've provided a number of representative examples, yet those are swept aside with a diversionary argument, while no evidence for the thesis is provided in return. B. We have a system in place here for the purposes of clarification when an editor needs further information about a topic or person: a hyperlink. The first instance of Alex Kingston's name is hyperlinked, leading an editor unsure who she might be back to her article. The article makes it clear she is both Alexandra by birth and a woman. Moreover, the character River Song is also hyperlinked, there is a photograph of the actress in character, and the words "she" and "her" appear in close proximity to and in reference to Kingston's name, making it clear she is a woman. Consequently, no further intervention is needed. Readers are accustomed to the hyperlink being the tool to seek more in-depth information, and it is not an inconvenience to them. Problem solved. C. We do not provide parenthetic clarifications when names are unclear. Again, that's the function of the hyperlink. Consequently, we have a faulty, and unsupported thesis, a mechanism in place to provide clarification and no consensus to add the parenthetic Alexandra. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, you (plural) win. Not just "You've beaten me", but "You've convinced me". I'm not happy with the accusation of misogyny, which is totally unsupported by my long history of editing here, but after all the arguing I can see how it could grow out of nothing at all — or rather, out of my evidently mistaken belief that Alex was primarily known as a masculine name, which does not imply misogyny or anything like it. Done, finished. See y'all around, hopefully in better understanding on all sides. --Thnidu (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Segun Akinola

This is just a notice that there is a draft for Segun Akinola at Draft:Segun Akinola until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- Alex^TW 16:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See also

'See also' is missing a link to Doctor Who spinoffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_spin-offs 134.247.251.245 (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)