Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who

Disclaimer on the WikiProject

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help needed

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

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

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

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

Should alien species use the plural or singular forms?

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

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

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

The Rani images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Series 15 Filming

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

Infobox Doctor Who episode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Access All Areas episode

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Vindicator

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions § File:The Silence (11030194386).jpg - Fair use?

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