Talk:Doctor Who/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Section on scholarly views

I originally cited one master's thesis in a new section on scholarly views of Dr. Who. One editor objected that MA theses are not notable and are not appropriate for Wikipedia. I am not sure when a source being "notable" entered the criteria. Wikipedia requires sources that are "reliable". An MA thesis is that, the result of months or years of work by a graduate student under a committee of professors. Much more likely to be "reliable" than a newspaper article. (I have heard two people disparage MA theses, but they clearly were not talking about any theses produced where I have studied or taught!) At least I have created a section on scholarly reaction to Dr. Who, so this discussion has not been totally in vain. Trying to be constructive. Pete unseth (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have recently discovered that there are, as editor Masem (t) said, universities that permit shallow and short MA theses, weaker than some BA honors theses. I now understand why other editors have objected to MA theses as reliable sources. I am proud not to teach at a school that allows such low standards or practices. I can still honestly claim that I have seen some very solid MA theses. I have cited some of these and will continue to cite when appropriate. Only when appropriate.Pete unseth (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Masters and PhD thesis are not reliable scholarly sources for WP. Not all theses get peer-review (particularly at the Masters level), and lack the rigor of a published journal peer review. --Masem (t) 19:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thesis tend to be WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY sources. It is when the thesis are commented upon by WP:SECONDARY sources that the info might meet Wikipedia's standards. BTW you can certainly advertise this thesis on your blog or Facebook page. MarnetteD|Talk 22:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I will not engage in an edit war over citing an MA thesis, but I would like to clarify things. It has just been said, "Not all theses get peer-review (particularly at the Masters level)." Not sure what that is intended to mean, but every MA thesis I have been around was scrutinized by a committee of three professors. How much peer-review is needed? Also, newspapers and magazines are cited routinely, and they are not peer reviewed. And they often proudly claim to be original research. Hope this clarifies my thinking. Fear not, I will not reinstate the MA thesis that started this discussion. Amicably, Pete unseth (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Newspapers that we use are picked as reliable sources because they have shown a history of fact checking and editorial review - the equivalent of peer-review - and additionally, most that are writing opinions about Doctor Who or analyzing the show are respective experts in the area. Also, I know of several schools where you can write a masters thesis which is only reviewed by a single professor, as the masters are treated as a long-term project or homework assignment. Certainly there are peer-reviewed theses but the second part - who is the person writing it - matters very much too. Information from thesis from someone no-name that is not mentioned anywhere else would be WP:UNDUE inclusion over sourced material from known critics. --Masem (t) 01:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Masem, MarnetteD, and Pete unseth: Sorry to drop in here out of the blue and late.The "MA" is from Signum University which is online only and not yet accredited .[1] It does sound interesting though, see Corey Olsen. But my main issue is that I was disappointed to see that the section is not actually about scholarly views but is really a bibliography or a section of one, which is where I think it belongs. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Please include the different sonic screwdrivers and the regenerations please.Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moona046.318 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The SS has its own article here Sonic screwdriver so there is no need to repeat that info here. MarnetteD|Talk 16:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Troll edit has been added to page

User James Bowes added the line “aimed at weirdos” to the wiki page. Has been removed once but he placed it back again. MagicMaster125 (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2019

Remove line “aimed at an audience of children and weirdos” (children can stay) MagicMaster125 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Removed all together as it was an undiscussed recent addition. Don't think children should stay as I believe the BBC has always said it's aimed at a family audience. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2019

{doctor who series 13 has started filming already and fans will have to wait a while as series 13 doesnt start till March 2021} 51.9.164.216 (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2019 (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. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Also include a source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

In the first sentence of the premise section it is stated that the TARDIS is a "time machine that travels by materialising into and dematerialising out of the time vortex."

This is incorrect, materialisation and dematerialisation have been mixed up. Within the universe of the show dematerialisation refers to a TARDIS exiting N-Space and entering the time vortex and vice versa.

I suggest the sentence is changed to "time machine that travels by dematerialising into and materialising out of the time vortex." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AD1B:C900:60AB:447:9517:9909 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a valid interpretation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Actors

In the opening piece about doctor who it says 13 actors have protrahiert the role. This is untrue as with John Hurt’s War Doctor there has been 14 actors to play the doctor. Furthermore after William Hartnell’s death many actors have played the first doctors in episodes such as David Bradley in “Twice Upon a Time.” Jamfa2001 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To be accurate it says "Thirteen actors have headlined the series as the Doctor." Those that you mention are part of the shows history but they did not headline it. MarnetteD|Talk 01:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hurt and Bradley have never been a series lead. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

The line “ The programme depicts the adventures of a Time Lord called "the Doctor",“ is incorrect as the Time lord is called “doctor” not “the doctor” the “the” is how you say it like “the farmer” but they are a “farmer” for an example it should be changed to “ The programme depicts the adventures of a Time Lord called "Doctor",” I hope you can fix this soon. 662mann (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Though Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see The Doctor (Doctor Who). Esowteric+Talk 18:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The Doctor has never gone “I’m Doctor”--Duroq145 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Many facts are wrong

Sorry, but since the latest information (Episode Timeless Child) a lot of things are wrong here.

The Docter is NOT a Timelord, NOR is he from the planet Gallifrey. He is a immortal being from a different dimension that did a mass genoice on Gallifrey, since they did tortured him to get immortality. Every time he was talking about home he was just moking that he did hate everbody there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.84.192 (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, what torture? The Timeless Child was evaluated many times over to learn the secret of regeneration. Additionally, as this is all rather new information and not yet clear how the show will use it going forward, we're not going to rewrite and blaze through the past without knowing for sure what it means. --Masem (t) 02:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:INUNIVERSE applies. None of these are facts: they are details about an evolving fiction, whereas Wikipedia focuses on the real world. Bondegezou (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Doctor Roo" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Doctor Roo. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 22#Doctor Roo until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Should sexism be endorsed on this article

In the history tab, Whittaker is named as the “first female doctor”. I have changed this as it is sexism. It is sexist because it is giving special treatment to this version of the character that is uncalled for. It’s not like William Hartnell has ever been written alongside the words “first male doctor” is it? So why on Earth is this acceptable to be put next to Jodie Whittaker?

This discussion was made as per WP:BRD

Panda815 (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not sexist. It's a noteworthy departure from the established tradition of having a male Doctor. Esowteric+Talk 17:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes but no comments about the Doctor’s gender have ever been made before. The Doctor is alien so maybe they don’t even have a gender only takes on an appearance, who knows? Who are we to talk about the Doctor’s gender? Comments were not made about Smith being the youngest doctor etc. This is sexism in maybe not the way you’d expect. Panda815 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You would need to cite reliable sources that state that the coverage in the media is/was sexist.

Also, from Eleventh Doctor: Smith was aged 26 when cast, making him the youngest actor to portray the Doctor. DonQuixote (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m with the other guys. Lifelong DW fan and I love Jodie’s Doctor, but stating she’s the first female Doctor is simply a curious point of interest as a break from the norm, not an example of sexism. GloverMist (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You seem to be looking at this from an entirely in-universe perspective. In fact, speculation over whether there would ever be a female Doctor has been around for years. John Nathan-Turner would tease the media that the next Doctor he would cast might be a woman. When it finally happened it generated huge coverage. Peter Davison complained about boys not having a role model anymore. It was a notable event in the history of the show and needs to be mentioned. P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

During at least one regeneration sequence, it was explicitly stated that the next regeneration could be "a man or a woman"; so yes, the possibility was teased within and outside the show. Like a female James Bond, this is a departure from past practice, and noting that is by no means sexist. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"Yes but no comments about the Doctor’s gender have ever been made before. The Doctor is alien so maybe they don’t even have a gender only takes on an appearance, who knows?" Who are we to talk about the Doctor’s gender?" Panda, you obviously don't know your Doctor Who history. In the classic series, the Doctor was always referred to as a "he", hence Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart's famous line "splendid chaps, all of them". Remember that? Rodericksilly (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There was extensive media coverage over Whittaker being the first female doctor. Clearly we should cover it. Bondegezou (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions many firsts - one of the first electronic theme songs, first married companions in the Tardis, first openly gay companion, New Zealand being first country outside of UK to air Dr Who and many others. All mentioned because the events were significantly different. To not mention such a big change would be ignoring significant facts and probably be sexiest in itself.  Stepho  talk  00:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously this is ridiculous, The Doctor has been portrayed by men up until Jodie Whittaker so it reasonable to say "first female Doctor", and we have people trying to mask the debate under discussion of gender identity overall and claim a PC indemnity card while expressing their regendered characters grievance. Next there will be points made how The Timeless Child changes all this even though nobody has bothered to try bring this new information into the article.Czarnibog (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing comma?

Is there a missing comma in the lead?

Compare (existing) The Doctor is currently portrayed by Jodie Whittaker, who became the first woman to play the role after Peter Capaldi's exit in the 2017 Christmas special "Twice Upon a Time".

to The Doctor is currently portrayed by Jodie Whittaker, who became the first woman to play the role, after Peter Capaldi's exit in the 2017 Christmas special "Twice Upon a Time". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.137.170 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Change Doctor Who to Science Fantasy

A lot of scifi aficionados think Doctor Who is science fantasy. It is marketed as scifi, but it's more fantasy. The Tardis is a magic box that looks ridiculous, the sonic is a magic wand, the Doctor is a magic man. Sometimes it is sci-fi (e.g. The Girl Who Waited) or unapologetic fantasy (The Doctor's Wife) sometimes it is horror or soap opera. Most experts think traveling back in time is impossible due to the Grandfather paradox. Scientific explanations are minimal or inconsistent. So a science fantasy description is more suitable. - Artanisen (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we reflect what reliable sources say. Please show that reliable sources commonly and consistently class this as science fantasy. DonQuixote (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Moffat No Longer Show Runner

In the spoofs section, "Curse of Fatal Death", Moffat is described as "current show runner". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.157.129 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for catching that IP. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DW 4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Emir of Wikipedia tagged the following in the lede as undue weight(?): "Beginning with William Hartnell, thirteen actors have headlined the series as the Doctor, and in 2017 Jodie Whittaker became the first woman to play the role."

Personally I think this is important, though perhaps not important enough to be in the lede. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It was more specifically about the last clause, but I do think the first one is a bit undue for this article too. The Doctor as a character has a separate article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The current incarnation of the Doctor has always been mentioned in the lead; I don't think that's undue for an ongoing show. The lead has been re-worked recently, it previously didn't mention Hartnell at all, and named the specific episode in which Whittaker made her debut [2]. I think the balance now is about right.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no UNDUE issue. Mentioning the first Doctor is appropriate, mentioning the current is necessary, and mentioning something that makes her unique is appropriate. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What is undue about the fact that the programme started with Hartnell and in 2017 (after 54 YEARS! of the programme's existence and 12 regenerations) a big decision was made to cast a woman in the main role? As was mentioned in a recently archived Talk discussion, there was overwhelming consensus that the first woman to play the role in such a long time gained large media attention and is obviously significant to widespread awareness of the programme. Rodericksilly (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean mentioning she's a woman is due, or undue? As I stated, seems due to me, so no issue, and UNDUE tag should be removed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you. The fact that it took such a long time and so many regenerations before they took the plunge is pretty significant to the programme and its history. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a fair point to some degree in this (noting Whitaker is the first female Doctor) as it sorta lacks the context of why this is novel/important. Fans of the show know that the Doctor has traditionally been a male character and thus to cast the character as female is a big change and thus major, but this fact is not really mentioned before getting here. Can this be worked into the lede to be better? --Masem (t) 18:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who logo?

Can you discuss within a title card or a logo for Doctor Who? --The Houndsworth (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The title card gives a reader a better indication of what the show is about over the bare logo. Please see WP:BRD regarding the WP:CONSENSUS at this time. You are free to start a WP:RFC to see if that consensus might change. MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Added strike to text of banned or blocked SOCK editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the update UW Dawgs. MarnetteD|Talk 20:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Dr w" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dr w. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Dr w until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Captain[[User

Rewording: Introduction of sex-/gender-changing in Time Lords (Characters: The Doctor: Change of apperance)

I just noticed two things about the way this sentence is written that maybe could be improved upon. As it stands: "The show introduced the Time Lords' ability to change gender on regeneration in earlier episodes, first in dialogue, then with Michelle Gomez's version of The Master."

The first is that it is unclear if the idea of this change is introduced in the immediately preceding episodes or gradually: from the section it is not necessarily evident that Missy was a recurring character, nor does it mention that it was several series beforehand that it was explicitly stated (as far as I remember, the first time was in series 6, 4 and a half series before the Doctor actually regenerated into a woman).

The second is that it says about changing gender. I am not sure how this should be best worded as regeneration is not only a biological change, but it is understood that a new personality (with just some basic components remaining the same) also comes along. Because of the biological aspect I would lean towards saying sex rather than gender, but to me this still doesn't cover the change in gender experienced too (I have not actually seen series 11 and 12, but I assume that gender dysphoria is not a part of it, given the anticipated and realised controversy surrounding the Doctor changing sex to begin with). One thing of note is that in World Enough and Time (S10) he does say to Bill that Time Lord society is millions of years past humans' "petty obsession with gender and its associated norms and stereotypes" although given the context, it would be difficult to assess to what extent this is true or a flippant remark. In that two parter there were a handful of lines which were obviously hinting towards a female Doctor, but their meta-utility doesn't automatically decanonise them. This individual line does push me further towards suggesting that changing sex is a more accurate description than changing gender, however. If there are any Wikipedia guidelines around the topic that would also be useful to be made aware of, although one would assume that the guideline is to use the most accurate term possible.

My suggestion is to change it to say "The show had been introducing the ability of Time Lords to change sex upon regeneration during the six years prior to Whitaker's first apperance as the Doctor. This was done firstly in dialogue, then with Michelle Gomez's portrayal of the Master, whose previous incarnations had also all been male." I am admittedly not convinced by the clause at the end because its presence sounds somewhat redundant, but its absence, in my opinion, is ambiguous for non-Whovians. A rewrite of that second sentence may work better, for example: "This was done firstly in dialogue, then furthered by the the appearance of Michelle Gomez as a female incarnation of Missy, the name consequently adopted by the Master." I had been trying to avoid spoilers about Missy being the Master, but it seems to me that the only way to do that would be to refer to Michelle Gomez as the Master directly, which would spoil the reveal anyway as soon as she introduces herself as Missy. Anditres (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Character name inspiration?

Anyone have any idea if Ayesha Dharker's character's name (Yasmeen Khan) later on in Waterloo Road, after her appearance in Doctor Who, was an inspiration for the name of one of the current Doctor's companions, Yasmin Khan? I know that Ayesha only appeared in one episode of Doctor Who, but could it be, or is the similarity in names only because of the ancestral heritage of both women, and the likelihood of that name being used normally? 32.212.102.239 (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of 4k hdr in picture format infobox

2021 Episode has the picture format 4K (UHDTV). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.46.164 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

The section on the Master ought to mention that the current incarnation of the Master is played by Sacha Dhawan, who was introduced in 2020.

In the section on Companions, it currently says that Bill Potts was the first openly gay companion. This is true, however, the first openly LGBT companion appeared over a decade earlier: Jack Harkness, who is bisexual or pansexual. 86.152.85.119 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for answering this RandomCanadian. To add to your post the Master is only mentioned in brief and none of the actors who have portrayed the character are listed. The IPs second item could be mentioned but it wasn't as specifically noted in the press in quite the same way that Pearl M. was. MarnetteD|Talk 03:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

Jodie Whittaker quit being Doctor Who last week. So the end date to her stent as the doctor needs to be changed from present, to 2021. 162.72.121.117 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done She has several more episodes before her character regenerates and the last one doesn't air until sometime in 2022. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Production companies in infobox

Isn't Doctor Who produced by BBC Studios at the moment? I seem to recall them taking over after they were established, but I'm having trouble finding a source. Also, in regards to Bad Wolf Productions, the news release states they are to be a co-producer - so shouldn't the infobox state something like:

• BBC Wales (2005-2018)
• BBC Studios (2018-present)
• Bad Wolf (2023-)

Etron81 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Checking episodes on HBO Max in the USA, Series 1-9 are credited to BBC Wales or BBC Cymru Wales in the end credits, Series 10 is BBC Studios with Cymru Wales beneath the Studios logo, and Series 11 on are just BBC Studios Etron81 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

Can I Please Edit This Page? Li San Ho (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021 (2)

Doctor Who Was Also Broadcasted On UKTV's W (Formerly Watch) From 2008 to present. Li San Ho (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022: grammar fix

The last sentence in the first paragraph under "Charity Episodes", which starts "Featuring three of the first five Doctors", is not a proper sentence and should start "It features". 194.193.168.77 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed that, thanks. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

Under missing episodes, it states between about 1967 and 1978. This is confirmed that these are the exact dates that are missing, so I think the ambiguity should be removed and it should state that "Between 1967 and 1978, large amounts of older material..." Will lowe97 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2022

I'm Doctor Who executive producer 2A02:C7E:3D4D:7500:1C08:DB6A:137A:88CC (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, taking this at face value, we tend to have a principle that all information must be publicly sourced. We generally discourage people close to a subject from editing to attempt some sense of neutrality. On the other hand if you have an suggestions please write them here.

Please excuse the title, but guidance on this can be found at WP:COI

Rankersbo (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2022 (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. Edit requests are intended to request that a specific change is made, not to request access to the article itself. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you imagine entering 2A02:C7E:3D4D:7500:1C08:DB6A:137A:88CC in the infobox :-) Reminds me that Peanuts once had a character named 5 MarnetteD|Talk 14:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

Bad Wolf Productions needs adding to the Production Companies as 2022-onwards as filming started back in June [3] for the 60th anniversary specials

Doctor Who has also been broadcasted on UKTV's W (Formerly Watch) and Drama Channels from 2008 to present [4] BenjiFoxy (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Bad Wolf to be added to the Production Company list.

I.e.

BBC Studios 2018-2022

Bad Wolf 2023- Present 90.249.164.167 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BlueNoise (Désorienté? It's just purple) 21:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rhain. Thanks for your detailed edit summary. My edit was based on the response to this thread. Apologies for not taking the time to read the article properly. MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: No apologies needed! There was a reason I didn't add it myself earlier—it took someone else doing it for me to realise it was probably appropriate, and only then did I look to see if the information was already sourced. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Show or programme, definitely not series

The usage of series, show and programme is inconsistent. It has a narrative and is under British English so shouldn’t show be used, according to the Television show article. I personally use programme (don’t use it that often) and show a synonyms so I don’t know if the article is correct.

Show seems to be most consistent (just over a 100), programme around 50 (I did just remove some off the lead section so under that) and series is also used for sets of episodes so it’s hard to pick up how often its used. Chocolateediter (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have to use just one throughout, as like you say they are largely synonymous. My feeling is "show" is more colloquial and less encyclopedic, so I would favour usage of series where the context makes clear that it is referring to the series as a whole and not just a particular year's worth of episodes, and programme otherwise. In this specific case, it might be that programme also refers to the entire history 1963-present, while series could mean 1963-89 or 2005-present? U-Mos (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Series" in British television always refers to what Americans refer to as a "season." The entire show should be called "show" or "programme" Rcarter555 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That's incorrect; "series" can (confusingly) refer to both an individual season and the show as a whole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We all have our opinions, but what do the sources say? As for primary sources, BBC's Doctor Who site refers to it up top as a "show" but then other language within the site also calls it a "series" (particularly as it pertains to the Disney+ deal) and BBC-branded DVD releases alternate between the use of "series" and "season" for a particular year's-worth-of-episodes. But as (per WP:PST) we're meant to rely more on secondary sources, it's notable that elsewhere in media, "series" is commonly used among often reliable sources, including UK outlets Radio Times (example), and The Guardian (example) as well as de-facto-standard reference sites like IMDB (example). With the increasing international reach of the series/show/program(me) – and perhaps the above discussion about Disney+ is a factor in that – I wonder if it's not a better approach to use more common nomenclature that's increasingly used not only internationally but within the country of the show's origin? That would be "series." —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Disney+ in the infobox

Following WP:BRD after a reversion of my edit by Rhain. While only original/home networks should be in the infobox, Disney+ is now a home network, thanks to the co-production deal that's just been announced. Same as HBO being listed for His Dark Materials (TV series), to trace back the Bad Wolf lineage. U-Mos (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@U-Mos: Thanks for the follow-up. My reversion wasn't about Disney+ being a "home network" but rather the original network: per {{Infobox television}}, the parameter is for the original network(s) only, not foreign broadcasters. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to add in because U-Mos called it a co-production deal: this isn't a co-production deal like with Starz for Torchwood's last season, it's just a broadcasting deal. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Um, isn't it? News this week has shifted towards the financial investment that's part of the deal, i.e. money into the production. [5] However, recognising that this is currently being discussed in terms of alleged/speculated, happy to wait for something more concrete. U-Mos (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

As of now, I don't think Disney+ should be listed as a network. I do however think Disney Platform Distribution should be listed in the distributor field. I've seen this done on other series where the international distributor is different from the distributor in its country of origin (ex: The Rookie, Magnum P.I., The Walking Dead, Designated Survivor). This Radio Times source specifically says Disney "will now act as a distribution partner overseas" so it does qualify as a distributor. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

All the article you linked says is that Disney are helping to increase the show's budget, it's nothing to do with who's producing the show. The article even says "What’s not mentioned in Broadcast’s report is if this financial injection from Disney comes with any creative control for the megastudio". The source basically says they might be helping provide more funding, and if that's true, then they might be part of the creative process. It's a conjecture within a conjecture. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a very narrow view of what constitutes a co-production, and not in line with how it's considered by the industry, critics or indeed Wikipedia. They don't need creative control (which is hard to quantify) for it to be a co-production, as long as they are financially investing. That would also make Disney+ an original network for the series going forward. As acknowledged, I jumped the gun given what's currently certain, so happy to revisit later. U-Mos (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Disney helping with the budget could possibly be interpreted as having prepaid a sales contract.  Stepho  talk  07:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Outside of the network listing, any opposes on reinstating Disney just to the distribution field based on what I said above? Details on funding aren't certain yet, but distribution seems to be. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sure it's entirely appropriate. {{Infobox television}} says the parameter is for the "original" distributor, and while that doesn't explicitly exclude international distributors, I still think we should stick to the original country only. Disney should certainly be mentioned in prose though, and I'm not opposed to a footnote. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

From my understanding original distributor is not limited to the country of origin. It seems this is a direct distribution deal (BBC Studios > BBC One/iPlayer and Disney Platform Distribution > Disney+), not a third-party distribution (BBC Studios > Disney Platform Distribution > Disney+). The Infobox instructions does also say company or companies, so it does imply that there could be more than one. Perhaps this specific issue needs a wider discussion at either the Infobox talk page or WT:TV/MOS:TV for a wider consensus given the other articles I mentioned above. I'd be fine with removing it again until that discussion gains some input, especially since Disney won't begin distribution until 2023. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You make some good points. Either way, I definitely think this could benefit from a wider discussion at Template talk:Infobox television or WT:TV so we can make the phrasing more specific for future reference. (It seems to have been brought up a few times over the years, but never given a definitive answer.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the talk page of the Infobox if you or anyone else cares to chime in. I'll also drop a notice at WT:TV. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

In the new issue of Doctor Who Magazine, RTD says edits of the Tennant specials were sent to Disney+ for comment. Does that look more like a co-production? Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of interpretation, synthesis, and analysis going on here. It's all interesting to consider, but when it comes to adding this to the article, don't we need a reliable source that calls it a "co-production"? —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 15:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you're right! OK, what about these that appear to be in favour of co-production: Telegraph, Screen Rant, Geek Tyrant? Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Subcategories reversion

@Bondegezou: What's your rationale for this reversion? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhain, when you've been reverted, usually you come to Talk and put the case for your edit. That would have been a nicer way to start this conversation.

You removed a large number of categories. I am, in general, in favour of trimming categories down. People don't pay enough attention to WP:DEFCAT and I think there are many categories that don't belong on this article. However, you have twice given your reasoning as WP:SUBCAT. WP:SUBCAT means that if an article is, say, in the Cities in France category, it should not also be in the Populated places in France category or the Geography of France category, because Cities in France is a subcategory of those, and so including it alone is sufficient. That rationale does not apply to many of the categories you removed, like BAFTA winners (television series), or Television shows adapted into novels. Thus, I reverted your edit, as the edit summary and the edit made were discordant. I would be happy to support removing some categories if you could better explain why you think they should go. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: When you revert someone, usually you give a reason for doing so. That would have been a nicer way to start this edit. I already explained my edit here, so it's generally expected that you do the same when reverting, even if your reasoning is the same as your previous reversion; "WP:BRD" is not a valid reason.

You've understood my reasoning well, but you're mistaken: the rationale does apply to every category I removed, since Category:Doctor Who is a subcategory to all of them. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. You are right. My apologies. I have restored your edit. Bondegezou (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Rhian, Doctor Who is only a subcategory of those categories as you added it to them. It's not like it was there all along. Rankersbo (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rankersbo: Correct, I added it to most (not all) of them, for consistency; I never claimed otherwise. That has no impact on this discussion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up, Rankersbo. Rhain, your assignment of the Doctor Who category as a child to so many other parent categories seems questionable, so I've now reverted that and re-reverted the change here. If putting category A in category B, you should ensure all subcategories of A fit in B, and that doesn't apply to the changes you've made, I suggest. For example, the subcategories of Dr Who concepts or characters does not fit in the parent category 1963 British television series debuts. Bondegezou (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: It's not currently labelled as such, but it appears to me that Category:Doctor Who is a topic category and thus doesn't require this direct is-a relationship (for example, the subcategory Category:Health in France doesn't really fit the parent category Category:Member states of the European Union, but it needn't since their intermediate—Category:France—is a topic category). Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this is my understanding. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories are complicated and I do not pretend to understand all the ins and outs of Wikipedia's policies. I am going by WP:SUBCAT, which says, "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second (an is-a relationship), then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second. For example, Cities in France is a subcategory of Populated places in France, which in turn is a subcategory of Geography of France." By that rule, some of your categories for the Dr Who category seem wrong to me. I don't see anything saying that topic categories don't require that. If you could point me to something?

I thought it might be useful to look at practice elsewhere. So, I looked at Star Trek and Category:Star Trek and, frankly, it's somewhat confusing. Some of what they've done there matches what you are seeking to do; some doesn't. The Star Trek article, for example, is in Category:Television shows adapted into comics, Category:Television shows adapted into films, Category:Television shows adapted into novels and Category:Television shows adapted into video games, but Category:Star Trek isn't. That's contrary to what you did. However, Category:Star Trek is in Category:Space opera, which does match what you propose here.

With Thunderbirds (TV series) and Category:Thunderbirds (TV series), the article is in most categories and the category is in very few parent categories, which largely goes against what you propose. Perhaps further examples will be helpful to consider. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I read that quote from WP:SUBCAT earlier and certainly recognise your point. I think the following paragraph has an even more relevant quote: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." There's nothing specific about topic categories not requiring that; that's just my interpretation of WP:TOPICCAT, especially considering the example of Category:France. I could be (and most likely am) wrong.

Unfortunately, looking elsewhere really doesn't help, since there seems to be little consistency—other articles are just as messy as this one, if not more so. Of the four categories you listed, three (comics, films, and video games) are also used as the parent categories for some (though admittedly few) subcategories—hence my edits. Perhaps Thunderbirds is the best example to follow here; it seems much simpler and more logical. Either way, Category:Doctor Who's parent categories are currently a mess of inconsistencies, which is what led to my edits in the first place.

Despite this discussion and my edits, my interest in the existence and maintenance of categories was pretty minimal to begin with and is progressively decreasing—wearing a bit thin, so to speak—the more I try to understand them, so feel free to make whatever changes you see fit. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 15:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

Change: From 2005, the series switched from single-camera to a multi-camera setup.[21]

to

From 2005, the series switched from a multi-camera to a single-camera setup.[21]

Asfolsom7 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done–small jars tc 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate sentence in meetings of incarnations

The following statement appears in the middle and at the end of that section.

Additionally, multiple incarnations of the Doctor have met in various audio dramas and novels based on the television show. 2001:1970:541F:E400:7425:736E:5FE2:EB98 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Please can i have an edit request so i can edit any latest news to the topic Darth coke (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

In the "Meetings of different incarnations" section, the episode "Once, Upon Time" is written as "Once Upon Time" without the comma, and the text does not link to the relevant episode's page on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once,_Upon_Time). DarwinDerby9577 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

"Brian Minchin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Brian Minchin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 27 § Brian Minchin until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 27 § Doctor Who Glossary of Terms and Names until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Doctor and Rose" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Doctor and Rose has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 27 § The Doctor and Rose until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

"List of Doctor Who logos" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Doctor Who logos has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 27 § List of Doctor Who logos until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023

Fix "Instalments" to "Installments" Trugo (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Disregard, didn't know it could be spelled that way. Trugo (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is written in British English, which predominantly uses instalments rather than instalments. JacobTheRox (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean 'installments' for the second one Cal3000000 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Time and Relative Bordom in Space

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.

---

Honestly, does not the article read like yet another BBC press release? All this hype for what is a relatively minor, and often meaningless, TV programme. And, just like Dr Who, half the text/padding could be deleted. For despite any impression given, not all us Brits like this pointless space show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.103.95 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the page could use some work, and probably some trimming and splitting. Personal opinions on the programme, however, are neither relevant nor useful. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Then again, to counterbalance any PR spin, might there not be a section highlighting negative media reactions towards Doctor Who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.215 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No one's stopping you from finding negative reactions to the franchise from reputable sources. Good luck with that, though. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2023 (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.

Theme tune

The theme tune is widely regarded as having been written by Ron Grainer and Delia Derbyshire. I think this article needs to be update to reflect this. 188.29.72.127 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You need to cite a reputable source stating that. Derbyshire's contributions are already mentioned at Doctor Who theme music. DonQuixote (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

The time for the 14th doctor should be 2023, as he is going to air from november 25 to december 29 2023 Writer Kad (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

*December 9 Writer Kad (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

wait can i not use asterisks? *Decmber 9th yeah that works im new sorry Writer Kad (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're referring to the table in § Changes of appearance, that will be changed once his era debuts next week. Until then, "forthcoming" is more appropriate. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

director

I can find no mention of Waris Hussein anywhere in this page, surely he deserves recognition as the original director 81.109.155.64 (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Plenty at An Unearthly Child. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Split article?

Why don't the franchise and programme have separate articles or an article showing a list of media productions. Chocolateediter (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A split to bring the basics of the Whoinverse as well as all the spin off shows and other non-canon works (like the two early films) would help with the size of this. Masem (t) 18:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's brief, but there is a new article about the Whoniverse, ready for expansion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest episode

The lede of James Bond includes:

The most recent Bond film, No Time to Die (2021), stars Daniel Craig...

but any reader coming here - quite reasonably - to look up the latest episode finds nothing. The article should have a comparable sentence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Entries in a movie series come out only once every few years and are easy to keep up-to-date. TV series come out weekly and are impractical to maintain in this manner.  Stepho  talk  03:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If anything, most TV shows that are currently running state something like "The show recently completed its second season, and two additional seasons have been greenlit.", but that's it. Nothing like a per-episode level. Masem (t) 14:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Such an addition would also fail WP:TVGUIDE. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Series 14 to be rebranded as "Season 1"... thus creating a conflict with the original show

[6] based on interview with RTD in SFX magazine. I know this is being discussed on the Series 14 page, but this is a major change if the BBC continues with it when the series/season airs. Masem (t) 00:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how it is relevant to this article, as it does not comment on the change from season 26 to series 1 from classic who to new who Cal3000000 (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

It may apply to the entire Doctor Who article tree, and this is a good top level article to make those editors that work on DW articles aware. But until we actually get Series 26/Season 1 to air (2025?) we don't have to worry about it right now. Masem (t) 17:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you bringing this up now. Also, series 14/season 1 is supposed to air 2024 Cal3000000 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Doctor Who (series 14)#RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons for the official RFC on the article titles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14) § RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who (series 14) § RFC: Title of this article, and following seasons. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Explantation of Timelord in the lead.

I added it according to a peer review but @Rhain: removed it, I feel as it is justified given the explanatino of regeneration in the lead, I would like other opinions on if everyone is in agreement on to remove the explanation I am happy to comply. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That a Time Lord has two hearts is not especially significant to their identity, nor does it provide any useful information to the reader. Regeneration, meanwhile, is an essential concept to the show. As the peer reviewer suggested, it is important to elaborate on what a Time Lord is, but I don't believe their number of hearts actually does that. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sock edits

My reversion of the recent edits by the latest sock of User:Politialguru were purely on the basis of their block evasion. That they have been prevented from editing here is sufficient to revert the efforts of their socks summarily, without the burden of a requirement to assess the merits or otherwise of each edit. Should someone care to assess any merit within the edit and restore any such element, by all means, but I'm purely tackling their chronic disruption.

For what it's worth, I had no cause to revert their earlier efforts at this article as the bulk, maybe all, appear to have been reverted anyway, evidently for the sort of sweeping and combative editing that contributed to their sockmaster's block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand the basis of block evasion; my confusion was primarily due to reversions without any sockpuppet investigation to support it—but I see that has been rectified. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Moot as to how worth it SPI is in such a serial case, though the bother is not considerable when the WP:QUACKing is so evident, hence filing one in the end. Happy to elaborate by e- if you're interested but not in front of matey. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No stress; I can also hear the quacking, even at a cursory glance. I trust your judgement here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

David Tennant being the first to play multiple incarnations

The section on the doctors character states “ she regenerated into a form portrayed by David Tennant, who was confirmed to be the Fourteenth Doctor and the first actor to play two incarnations” which I’m pretty sure isn’t true since Tom Baker played both the 4th doctor and has been confirmed to later regenerate into the curator. And if you want to get really nitpicky with it, In “Power Of The Doctor” the master forces 13 to regenerate into him and then she goes back to being the same face as 13 but on a different regeneration number 216.250.210.90 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Baker played the Doctor then the Curator, not the Doctor then the Doctor again. And your sentence about Whittaker makes no sense; she only ever played the Thirteenth Doctor, there was no "different regeneration number" - how do you have a "different regeneration number" between a Thirteenth and a Fourteenth Doctor? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say? It's not up to editors to make these interpretations. Is there a source saying Tennant is the "first actor to play two incarnations"? Is there a source saying anyone else is? Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also argueably Sylvester McCoy was the first to as he played six in the Time and the Rani. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Half-hearted suggestion to finally update the "original network" parameters of this franchise at once

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.

---

Simply put, pay close attention to the "Reason" field of that diff and in and ideal universe, implement the change in infobox accordingly. 2409:40E3:2F:2886:CE:AFF:FEE8:F86F (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This talk page is about the article Doctor Who. If you would like to discuss individual series articles, do so at the individual talk pages (e.g., here). If you would like to discuss the franchise as a topic, do so at WT:WHO. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Inchoate, Rhain: Simply put, this franchise is a TV programme first and foremost, so.. And no, I'm not gonna “discuss the franchise” not just because of WP:SOAPBOX, but since I'm not a fan of anything or anybody, let alone this, I don't have any personal affection for it to come across like a YT or reddit contributor. I simply wanted to confirm what was already known. —2409:40E3:41:72A7:14D6:BFF:FE7E:59E8 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I meant "discuss" in Wikipedia terms, not as a fandom or forum. In any case, this talk page is about the Wikipedia article Doctor Who, and it appears your edit request is about individual series articles, so I recommend you take that discussion there (or here). All the best. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:31, 29 December 2023 (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.

British English in Lead

At present the punctuation in the Lead is incorrect: British English does not use a comma before "and" in a list of three or more items unless there is a need for an 'Oxford' comma to avoid ambiguity. None exists here. Why my helpful edit was reverted without discussion, I do not know Billsmith60 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: It is not incorrect; the Oxford comma is suitable as long as its usage is consistent, per MOS:OXFORD. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The Millie leaving rumor.

You guys do realize the Russell T Davis and Millie Gibson haven't confirmed that Ruby Sunday's isn't leaving the tardis yet and you do realize the new companion might be traveling with the doctor and ruby instead of replacing, so whoever thought that might be legit check all your facts before confirming it's true. 198.217.122.254 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the talk page you're looking for is over yonder. This article doesn't even mention Gibson outside of the infobox. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also the relevant discussion over wild (blue) yonder. Summary: "official" announcements by "official" people are not the only valid/reliable source. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Add the follow citation for the paragraph "The 2006 series introduced a new variation of Cybermen. These Cybus Cybermen were created in a parallel universe by the mad inventor John Lumic; he was attempting to preserve the humans by transplanting their brains into powerful metal bodies, sending them orders using a mobile phone network and inhibiting their emotions with an electronic chip.": https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/rise-of-the-cybermen-the-age-of-steel/ Lanceconstablecuddy (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! Irltoad (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)